Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

METHODIST CHURCH BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

COUNTY OF SOUTH GLAMORGAN BILL [Lords]

Order for consideration read.

To be considered upon Tuesday next.

ANGLIAN WATER AUTHORITY BILL [Lords]

Order for Second reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday next.

CROMARTY HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Metropolitan Police (Recruitment)

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement about recruitment for the Metropolitan Police.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): The recent improvement continues, and the strength of the Metropolitan Police is now increasing by an average of about 100 officers a month.

Mr. Goodhart: It is only natural that crimes of violence should capture most of the headlines, but does the Home Secretary recognise that recently there has been a sharp increase in crimes of fraud? In welcoming him to his first Question Time, may I ask him what action he is taking to increase the staff of the over-pressed Fraud Squad?

Mr. Rees: I have not yet had time to put my mind to this matter, but of course that is what Question Time is for. I shall discuss this issue with the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police.

Mr. Craig: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is some truth in the generalisation that a policeman's lot is not a happy one? Accordingly, if recruitment and building up of the police force is to take place it is important to pay attention not only to pay and conditions of employment, but to the creation of confidence within the force. Will he keep under review the procedure for dealing with complaints against the police?

Mr. Rees: I shall do that. If the hon. Gentleman has any particular aspect in mind perhaps he will speak to me later.

Mr. Lipton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that with better rates of pay it is more likely that we shall obtain more adequate recruits? The more recruits we have, the better the police can deal with robberies and thefts from the person—crimes which are worrying a lot of people in the London area.

Mr. Rees: Recruitment is increasing, and this may be a reflection of the 30


per cent. increase in pay which the police obtained last year.

Police Interviews (Tape Recordings)

Mr. Christopher Price: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now publish the report of his committee on the tape recordings of statements to the police.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The committee was concerned with the feasibility of an experiment in the tape recording of police interrogations. Its report was published on 19th October. I am grateful to the members of the committee for their work; their report, which considers in detail the practical and financial implications of an experiment, is a valuable contribution to discussion.
Before taking a decision whether to set up an experiment, the Government will need to consider the views of interested organisations and individuals, as well as the financial implications in present circumstances. I shall welcome comments on the committee's report from those concerned.

Mr. Price: I thank my right hon. Friend for issuing the report so promptly. This is urgent, since it goes back to the Criminal Law Revision Committee of 1972. There will be grave disappointment that the committee recommended that only statements and not interrogations should be tape recorded. When he says that he is taking further consultations, does he have a deadline for these consultations, so that we shall have some idea when the Home Office will go ahead with this very important experiment?

Mr. Rees: The report was published a few days ago. I am seized of its urgency. I would like now to have the views of all those who are interested in this report, and I shall make up my mind as soon as I can.

Mr. Carlisle: The issues are very complex, but since the committee has recommended that it is feasible to have such an experiment, it is essential to get it going as soon as possible. The Home Secretary will realise that it is a necessary prerequisite to getting any further consideration of the Criminal Law Revision Committee's report on evidence.

Mr. Rees: I hope that those who have views about this report will listen to what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said. I shall look at all the views which are submitted to me. I am aware of the need for speed in this matter.

Mr. Lee: Is there not a double advantage in the tape recording of statements and interrogations, in that it would provide protection for the defendant against misrepresentation and protection for the policeman who is making the interrogation against false allegations of perjury and misconduct?

Mr. Rees: I understand that, but I think that my hon. Friend will have read the report and will know, therefore, that there are problems in this respect. I want to hear what people have to say about it.

Walkie-Talkie Equipment

Mr. Whitehead: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions for use of illegal walkie-talkie equipment took place in 1974 and 1975, respectively.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Brynmor John): Ten in 1974 and four in 1975.

Mr. Whitehead: Is my hon. Friend aware of the great concern that exists about the amount of interference caused in the 27 and 28 MHz hand by illegal walkie-talkie equipment? Is it not absurd that the Home Office, which has a responsibility here, will not impound such equipment or ban its importation when by definition it can only be used illegally? Can we not take some action now, instead of waiting for the formulation of policy on a citizens' waveband?

Mr. John: I share my hon. Friend's concern about the use of walkie-talkie equipment, and particularly about the interference with equipment systems which are located on these frequencies, many of which systems are performing a worthwhile function. But it would be wrong to legislate piecemeal when in 1979 there will be a world administrative radio conference, which may well put forward many more general recommendations which will need legislation to gather them all together, and that may be a more appropriate time to act.

Mr. Rathbone: Will the Minister explain why he gave such a peremptory "No' to my Question for Written Answer a few days ago, seeking the establishment of a citizen's band on VHF? Is he aware that the establishment of such a band would meet exactly the exigencies of the problem which the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) raised? It would have the additional advantage of raising money for the Government and an even greater advantage to citizens wishing to use such a band in being able to do so.

Mr. John: I gave the peremptory answer "No" because the hon. Member asked, as I recollect, whether it was the Government's intention to set up such a citizens' band. Our answer is still "No", but I shall consider these matters, and if the hon. Member has further representations to make to me perhaps he will do so.

Official Secrets

Mr. Brittan: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he proposes to introduce legislation to reform the law on official secrets.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: It remains the Government's intention to bring forward some proposals as soon as possible.

Mr. Brittan: Does the Home Secretary not agree that the highest priority should be given to the liberalisation of the law on official secrets because it is one of the few beneficial reforms that will not cost extra money? By opening up the processes of government to the scrutiny of the public and Parliament we may even find ways of cutting public expenditure without reducing the standard of services.

Mr. Rees: I was a member of the Franks Committee. I cannot recall that a reduction in public expenditure loomed large in our minds when we recommended liberalisation. I am keen to see it, but it is a question not only of money but of parliamentary time. It is a complicated matter, but the hon. Member can rest assured that I have a vested interest in this question through the Franks Committee.

Race Relations

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether

he will take further steps to achieve better race relations.

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will take further steps to achieve better race relations.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The Government's policies for promoting racial harmony were set out in the White Paper on Racial Discrimination. We shall continue to pursue these policies and to give a lead in encouraging the tolerance and understanding on which good community relations depend.

Mr. Canavan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that politicians of all parties have a particular responsibility to try to promote harmonious race relations? As well as deploring provocative politics from organisations like the National Front, who try to incite hatred of coloured immigrants, does my right hon. Friend deplore those who try to incite people to hate the English, as is done by certain extremist elements in the Scottish nationalist movement?

Mr. Rees: As a Welshman born I must say that many of my friends are Englishmen. I see the point of my hon. Friend's final comment. On the first part of his question, I am convinced, new as I am to the job, that while there is much to be said for the legislation that we pass on this matter, what matters above all is what all of us are seen to be doing in everyday life in dealing with racialism. The most important element is the way in which we act and treat people.

Mr. Budgen: Does the Home Secretary agree that by far the most important action to improve race relations would be to reduce the number of immigrants coming into this country, particularly from the New Commonwealth? Does he agree that the concession that was allowed in June 1974, by which male fiancés are allowed in, has now clearly been seriously abused and should be revoked?

Mr. Rees: If there is abuse I must look into it I see no reason for departing from the general principle of treating men and women alike. As for the numbers, I must ask the hon. Member to look at the figures that are being published, and in particular the very small number of men and women from the


New Commonwealth who are coming here with employment permits. Those figures are the key to the long-term situation.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Does the new Home Secretary recognise that the first part of the White Paper to which he referred, which deals with disadvantage, was a most inadequate response to the most important part of the problem of race relations? Does he accept that a major overhaul of the Section 11 grants and the grant for the urban programme is now needed and that we must produce a coherent programme for dealing with disadvantage to ethnic minorities in this country?

Mr. Rees: My hon. Friend referred to disadvantage in the inner cities. The statements by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment about people in the inner cities, whatever the colour of their skin, form the basis on which to work. My hon. Friend is right. He had a responsibility here. The question of deprivation is a factor in racialism and in the problem of the inner cities.

Mr. Whitelaw: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment as Home Secretary. Once more we are brought into opposing positions, although our roles are reversed this time—I trust in the wrong way and only very temporarily. I associate myself fully with his views about the need to promote good race relations and to treat everyone here as an equal and welcome citizen in our country. But does the right hon. Gentleman not accept the resolutions passed at the Labour Party conference, which did a great deal to boost the feelings of those people who fear that there will be unrestricted entry into this country? Will he take this opportunity of rejecting that?

Mr. Rees: I was present when those resolutions were discussed. I trust that the right hon. Member will appreciate that there is a misunderstanding on the matter. I do not believe that what he suggested is the case.

Mr. Whitelaw: Look behind you.

Mr. Rees: I shall look behind me, and I am proud to be associated with a party that stands up on the matter of race relations. That matters a great deal.
I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he said in the first part of his question. I note our respective roles. May they last for a long time.

Immigrant Families (Grandparents)

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many grandparents of immigrant families have been given permission to settle in the United Kingdom in the years 1974–75 and to date in 1976; and how many of these grandparents are in receipt of supplementary benefit.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dr. Shirley Summerskill): I regret that this information is not available. Statistics of grandparents accepted for settlement on arrival are not maintained separately but are included in the published "Control of Immigration Statistics" as "others accepted for settlement on arrival (mainly dependants)". Such information as we have suggests that the number of grandparents so accepted is very small.

Mr. Lewis: Is the Under-Secretary aware that there is a general feeling that there are quite a large number of elderly people who have come in as immigrants—some are grandparents and some parents—and that they are unable to work here? The social security rule is supposed to be that the people who are already here and working are responsible for their keep, and that they should not be a call upon our social security system. Many of them are a call on the system, however. Will the Under-Secretary look into that?

Dr. Summerskill: The criteria for admission for settlement of grandparents or parents of people who are already settled here are set out in the Immigration Rules. They provide, among other things, that the sponsor must have the means to support a parent or grandparent and be able to provide accommodation. There is no evidence that anything but a very small minority of these people have to resort to supplementary benefit.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is plenty of evidence that many of these parents and grandparents are employed in the most useful jobs in industry? Is she aware that if she visited


Bradford she would find that we could not run some textile industries without them?

Dr. Summerskill: The people concerned in the Question are elderly and do not draw supplementary benefit. Under the rules of immigration, they are dependent on their children or grandchildren.

Mr. Ronald Bell: When extra-statutory categories of dependants are admitted by administrative announcement in future, will the hon. Lady bear in mind that it would be desirable to have statistics on the addition to total immigration which is thereby caused? Will she and her right hon. Friend also bear in mind that since the statistics became quarterly, the delay in their publication has become very bad?

Dr. Summerskill: I shall look at the question of delay in the quarterly statistics. They are based on spouses, with separate figures for men and women. There is another section for others accepted for settlement, mainly dependants. In this case, separate figures are given for men, women and children.

Vandalism

Mr. Steen: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he issues advice on measures designed to reduce vandalism; and, if so, to whom such advice is issued.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: In November 1975, the Home Office sent a report by the Standing Committee on Crime Prevention on this subject to a large number of organisations including the police, local authorities and the construction industry. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the report and a list of those to whom it was sent. We shall take an early opportunity of discussing the subject with chief officers of police.

Mr. Steen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the deep concern felt by many tenants on the large council estates on the edge of my constituency, and shared by tenants in cities throughout the country, that the situation could be greatly improved if the stigma of council tenancy were removed and people could own their own houses, have control over their environments and have power over their estates, free from the

tyranny of petty bureaucracy and local government officialdom?

Mr. Rees: I am all in favour of removing petty bureaucracy in local authorities, but on the wider question, vandalism—and I have put my mind to this matter—concerns me in my own constituency and does not take place only on council estates. It is pretty general. It is a matter to which we should put our minds. That is why I shall be talking about it to chief constables. A great deal is being done, but it is extraordinarily difficult to deal with the problem. The cost of it in inner city areas is staggering.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Does my right hon. Friend accept that one solution might be to provide work for juveniles who are unemployed? Will he consider, as a means of dealing with vandalism, an extension of something like community service orders, so that juveniles may make reparation to the community for the damage they have caused? Would this not be far more effective in dealing with them than other punitive measures, and be of far more benefit to them as individuals and to the community as a whole?

Mr. Rees: Unemployment among juveniles is bad and must be a factor in vandalism, but it is only one. I am interested in what my hon. Friend has said and if he cares to have a word with me about it, he can add to my store of knowledge. I am trying to do something about this problem and I should be interested in his views.

Mr. Costain: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the points system for the allocation of council houses means that parents with large families become concentrated on council estates and that there are hordes of youngsters who are bored to death? Does he agree that the vandals ought to make good some of the damage they cause and be helped to appreciate what is really good?

Mr. Rees: Vandalism takes place on council estates, but it also occurs in many other places. I have often found that there is no vandalism among larger families, where family spirit is greatest. The problem is not capable of easy explanation. It is complicated, and it costs a


great deal of money which we could well spend in other ways.

Immigration (Hawley Report)

Mr. Aitken: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any plans to implement the recommendations in the Hawley Report; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I keep immigration policy as a whole, including the matters discussed in Mr. Hawley's report, under continuing consideration. It would not be appropriate for me to single out for comment the contents of an internal report which forms only one element in the wide range of advice available to the Government.

Mr. Aitken: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, according to the report, in January 1975, there was a substantial relaxation of the administrative procedures in overseas posts for vetting visa applications for settlement, at the request of the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon), who was then Minister of State at the Home Office? Is he further aware that since that relaxation was introduced, well over 12,000 new immigrants have been admitted over and about the 1974 figure? Would it not be a good idea, in the interests of fairer and strict immigration control, to revert to the original procedures?

Mr. Rees: The hon. Gentleman is taking relaxation to mean that people who should not be here are coming here. My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) was looking at the question of dependants who have the right to come here and was attempting to speed up the process. I think that he was right to do so.

Mrs. Millie Miller: Will my right hon. Friend consider whether the authors of reports such as the Hawley Report should be entitled to immunity? I understand that it has been the practice to extend to civil servants the right of protection by Ministers, but should we not be protected from those who issue reports in their own names?

Mr. Rees: I am not au fait with the precise circumstances of the making public of this document, but there is no question of its being issued under the name

of the civil servant. However, I shall look at the matter raised by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Michael Latham: Does the right hon. Gentleman share my view that in this enormous problem there is nothing useful or sensible in trying to pretend that anything can be achieved by repatriation?

Mr. Rees: I firmly agree that repatriation, in the way it has been talked about recently, is wrong. I hope that none of the major parties will touch it with a barge-pole.

Mr. Bidwell: Is this question not jumping the gun, since the Franks Committee is studying this matter and will be reporting to my right hon. Friend fairly soon? Will he assure the House that whatever the outcome of that committee's considerations, or the Hawley Report, there will be no let up in the view of all parties in this House that the principle of family unity must be preserved, and that we shall not have hordes of guest workers in this country as some Tory racists would like to see?

Mr. Rees: I am awaiting the Franks Report with interest. I agree that family unity is an important factor in people settling down in this country.

Mr. Allison: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken) touched a sensitive point when he asked whether it was Government policy to relax existing controls on immigration? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what Government policy really is, in the light of the Labour Party recommendation that the 1968 and 1971 Acts should be abolished?

Mr. Rees: The hon. Gentleman has that a bit wrong. What matters is doing away with the 1971 Act. I was a member of the Committee that considered the Act. In many parts it is incomprehensible. It is vital to put that right. I invite the hon. Gentleman to read the Act and to see whether he understands it. All that the conference was referring to was the need to make citizenship a basis of immigration. That was something that I believed in strongly when I was a junior Minister doing that job. I like to think that it was as result of something I did that the matter was put in the party manifesto in 1970.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: As the major recommendation that I made when I made my visit to the sub-continent—the recommendation about which Mr. Hawley complained—was that in future the standard of proof should be the civil standard of the balance of probabilities, as against the criminal standard; as that was decided to be the law by the Divisional Court in 1972; and as instructions had not been given to the entry certificate officers until I gave them in 1975, will my right hon. Friend continue to abide by the ruling of the Divisional Court and ensure that this standard of proof is applied in all future entry cases?

Mr. Rees: I certainly do not intend to change that.

Urban Deprivation

Mr. Lane: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are his latest plans for tackling urban deprivation in the remaining 1970s.

Mr. John: Our Department is responsible for a number of programmes relevant to the problems of urban deprivation. We intend to ensure that these are developed and used as fully as public expenditure constraints permit.

Mr. Lane: In addition to making clearer the respective responsibilities of the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Secretary of State for the Environment, would it not be helpful if we had a White Paper or Green Paper explaining the whole of the Government's strategy on deprivation and disadvantage? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that such an explanation is now overdue?

Mr. John: The overlap of responsibilities is quite clear. We are responsible for specific programmes, such as the urban programme, the CCPs and the CDPs. My right hon. Friend is responsible for chairing a committee that is considering the problem of inner cities and deprivation. In due course the Government will make their views known.

Mr. Heffer: As there needs to be a comprehensive approach to the whole question, are discussions being held not only with the Department of the Environment but with the Department of Industry and other Departments that can make

a contribution to solving the problem of deprivation in the inner city areas?

Mr. John: Yes. My hon. Friend should know that the committee consists of representatives of both Departments.

Mr. Forman: As one of the most disturbing symptoms of urban deprivation in recent years has been the alarming increase in mugging, especially within the area that is the responsibility of the Metropolitan Police, will the hon. Gentleman assure the House that he will try to take action to encourage the implementation of stiffer sentences for those convicted of these crimes and, equally, provide better job prospects for the young people who are so often involved in these matters?

Mr. John: My right hon. Friend was speaking to the Commissioner of Metropolitan Police yesterday about that subject, among others. The factors that the hon. Gentleman mentions are some of those involved. However, the more that we look into questions of crime prevention the less we think that any simplistic solution, such as stiffer sentences, will bring a cure to the problem.

Obscenity Law

Mr. McCrindle: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he plans amending legislation on the law relating to obscenity.

Mr. John: My right hon. Friend has no present plans for legislation making fundamental changes in the law on obscenity, but when possible we want to legislate to give effect to recommendations of the Law Commission proposing certain amendments in the Obscene Publications Acts to compensate for the abolition of the common law on indecency.

Mr. McCrindle: I welcome the Minister's reply, but is it not becoming clear as a result of recent decisions that the law is full of inconsistencies and that we are placing responsibility for exercising value judgments on those who are ill equipped to carry out the function? I suggest that consideration be given to scrapping the whole of the present arrangement and reverting to straight censorship, no doubt taking into account the standards and values of 1976.

Mr. John: As the hon. Gentleman will know, the "deprave and corrupt" formula is criticised, but those who criticise it cannot suggest anything better to put in its place. Before the hon. Gentleman suggests changing the law, I beg him to consider the effect of the Law Lords' ruling in the case that was decided only yesterday.

Mr. Alison: Have the Government decided to accept the Law Commission report in respect of the common law function in this area? Many right hon. and hon. Members still feel that common law has an important role to play, and that it is much better in the film world, for example, than in books.

Mr. John: We want to legislate on the proposals, but to compensate for the abolition of common law on indecency rather than to supplement it, as the hon. Gentleman seems to suggest.

Mr. Fairbairn: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied with the law that allows Government bodies such as the Arts Council or the British Council to spend taxpayers' money on sending Cosi- fan Tutte to have a bath in polythene chips in Milan and to hold exhibitions of other absurdities such as we have in London? Is that Government policy? Are the Government happy to see money spent in that way at this time?

Mr. John: I do not think that any body of human beings will make correct decisions in every case. However, the correctness of the decisions that are made is a matter of individual taste. I do not agree with many of the comments that the hon. and learned Gentleman makes, for example. The basic answer is that these matters are for the Arts Council. That body is autonomous, and the Government do not interfere in its affairs.

Mr. Robert Hughes: When public money is in very short supply, will my hon. Friend take into account the use that outside bodies make of it when it is being allocated?

Mr. John: I accept that. When grant is being considered these matters are taken into account. One can never expect correct decisions in all cases in which grants are made.

Mr. Cormack: Will the hon. Gentleman go to the Institute of Contemporary

Arts to view the exhibition entitled "Prostitution" which is currently on display, which itself is a prostitution of the taxpayers' money? Will he have urgent consultations with the Secretary of State for Education and Science with a view to banning the grant given to that body, which is squandering our money?

Mr. John: As a matter of departmental responsibility, the exhibition is outside my control. As a private citizen, my leisure time is so limited that I probably shall not have the opportunity to go to the exhibition.

Mr. Hooson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the House of Lords decision this week in the obscenity case has basically changed the attitude of the courts towards the test of what is obscene and the evidence that can be called? Many of the questions asked today are irrelevant in the light of the decision of the Lords.

Mr. John: I tried to invite the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane), who asked the Question, to study the judgment of the Lords. Basically, it introduces a refinement into the law as it was understood. It would repay study before questions are asked.

Parliamentary Elections (Candidates' Deposits)

Mr. John Hunt: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the need to increase the deposit for candidates at parliamentary elections.

Mr. John: Since 1st January 1975 Home Office Ministers have answered nine Questions on the size of the deposit, two of which specifically suggested that it be increased.

Mr. Hunt: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that merely to keep pace with inflation the deposit would have to be increased to well over £1,000, bearing in mind when it was first fixed at £150? I do not necessarily advocate increasing it to that figure, but is it not a fact that the present very low figure, which was first fixed as long ago as 1918, is an open invitation to every crank in the land to stand for Parliament, merely for the cheap publicity?

Mr. John: I think that there should be a law against the hon. Gentleman incriminating himself in public. The hon. Gentleman does not seem to appreciate that this is primarily a matter for the Speaker's Conference. We hope that it will be one of the matters that the Speaker's Conference will take into account.

Mr. Madden: Does my hon. Friend accept that whatever the amount of the deposit, it will do little to stop certain wealthy individuals from standing in any number of constituencies, as has happened in recent elections? Does he agree that some regulations could be introduced whereby an individual is allowed to stand for election in only one constituency at any given time?

Mr. John: That is a matter that can be considered. However, the rise in candidates is not as dramatic as some hon. Members seem to think. In December 1918 the figure was 1,623. In October 1974 it was 2,252. That is hardly taking advantage of inflation and the depreciation in the value of money.

President Geisel (Visit)

Mr. Skinner: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has now been able to establish for how long a period the police film of the peaceful demonstration of President Geisel's visit in May 1976 will be available for training purposes and if it will eventually be destroyed.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis tells me that the film will be used for training purposes for protection officers as long as it serves a useful purpose. It will then be kept in police archives.
It has not been and will never be made available to any outside agency.

Mr. Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that it is of the utmost importance that outside agencies do not see films of this nature, especially as there were some Brazilians on the particular film concerned who would be placed in difficult circumstances if they wanted to return to Brazil? Is not the only real way to deal with this matter to destroy the film, and many others that the police took at the time? Does my right hon. Friend also accept that some of us find

it exceedingly difficult to understand why, if the police want films of noisy demonstrations for training purposes, the best films that could be taken are not those of the National Front, and not of small peaceful demonstrations such as that which occurred regarding Brazil?

Mr. Rees: My hon. Friend took the point that I made that these films will not be made available to outside agencies. I have learned from experience in the last two and a half years that protection officers have to be trained. That was the genuine reason for this. I have made inquiries about it. No attempt was made to disguise the fact that the film was being made. No effort was made to film spectators. The film will not be made available to Brazilians or anyone else.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Would it not be a good idea for the film to be made available to the public, so that apart from Brazilians the public could see the "phoney" group from "Rent-a-Crowd" who take part in such demonstrations?

Mr. Rees: It depends on the nature of the demonstration. While there are people who attend these things as something to be done every weekend, in many cases those who attend have a genuine concern about the issues.

Mr. Flannery: Will my right hon. Friend accept from me that on the Government Benches we feel that there is a gross indignity in having to be filmed by the police on these occasions—[Interruption.]—and that it is symptomatic that the laughter about this comes from Opposition Members, who never demonstrate on any occasion, except on the odd occasion with the National Front[Interruption.]—and that on the occasions when demonstrations take place—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman complete his question?

Mr. Flannery: On the occasions when these demonstrations take place—[Interruption.] Mr. Speaker, I am trying to formulate my question in the face of all this noise, and I should like to continue. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)—I almost said my "right hon. Friend" I withdraw that—has made a very important point. Chileans, Brazilians and people from


countries in which there are tyrannies are often at these demonstrations, and these films could be used to identify them in relation to the tyrannies about which we are talking.

Mr. Rees: On the last point, this cannot happen. In many cases—not that to which my hon. Friend has referred—it is important to take photographs to identify people who have committed offences, to illustrate to the courts the general nature and conduct of a crowd, and sometimes to counter allegations of police malpractice. However, there can be too much of this. When used properly, I think it is right. The police are very well aware that to overdo it would be wrong.

Mr. Whitelaw: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for raising it at this moment, but it is necessary to do so. I ask you to instruct the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) to withdraw his accusation that Members on the Opposition Benches demonstrated with the National Front. He knows that that is totally untrue.

Mr. Speaker: Accusations thrown at anyone in the House are always to be discouraged. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) may care—[Interruption.] Order. I know exactly the noise that there would be if a charge of marching with Fascists came from the Opposition side of the House. I am merely asking the hon. Member to withdraw the statement.

Mr. Flannery: As I have not named anyone, Mr. Speaker, I can see no point in withdrawing it.

Mr. Whitelaw: I am sorry to rise again on this point, Mr. Speaker, but the hon. Gentleman clearly said that Members on the Opposition Benches demonstrated with the National Front. That is totally untrue, and as he said it, he must withdraw it.

Mr. William Hamilton: How does the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) know that that is the case? How does he—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Hamilton: rose——

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Speaker: This is not a time for debating the issue. I thought that the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) had a point of order that he wished to raise.

Mr. Hamilton: Yes of course, Mr. Speaker, and I was about to add, if you had not interrupted—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman was very discourteous not to take his seat when I rose.

Mr. Hamilton: You rose in the middle of my point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was about to continue and to ask you whether you are asking my hon. Friend to withdraw something. Did not my hon. Friend refer to an organisation that is still legal?

Mr. Speaker: I asked the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough—I hope that he will help me in this matter—to withdraw any accusation that any hon. Members in the House are sharing in the National Front.

Mr. Flannery: rose——[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. What is against—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I thought that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough was about to reply to me.

Mr. Lyon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. What is against the rules of order in accusing some Opposition Members of joining with a legal organisation in a demonstration, even if that remark is inaccurate? The mere inaccuracy of a remark is not itself a breach of order.

Mr. Speaker: A responsibility is laid upon me to ensure that if remarks are offensive and likely to upset our arrangements—[Interruption.] I shall not be influenced by the shouting. I am quite sure that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough has been here long enough to know that if the Speaker asks him to withdraw a statement, as I have asked, he should do so.

Mr. Flannery: I withdraw what I said, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that there will be adequate proof coming from the Conservative Party that I was wrong.

SCOTTISH TRADES UNION CONGRESS

Mr. Canavan: asked the Prime Minister what subjects he proposes to discuss at his next meeting with the STUC.

The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): I expect to discuss a wide range of issues affecting the Scottish economy.

Mr. Canavan: Bearing in mind the deep concern within the Scottish TUC about the effects that further cuts in public expenditure would have on the already intolerable total of 150,000 unemployed in Scotland, will my right hon. Friend give a firm assurance to the whole Labour movement in Scotland and elsewhere that it is his intention in future to pursue more Socialist policies which have more in common with the Socialist principles and traditions of Keir Hardie than the sellout coalition principles and suggestions of people such as Ramsay MacDonald and Harold Macmillan?

The Prime Minister: The Government will continue to pursue the policies on which we fought and won the last General Election; that is to say, to conquer inflation, as our first—[Interruption.] Hon. Members seem to have lunched very well today—to conquer inflation as our first priority and to deal, through that, with industrial regeneration, which is absolutely essential for putting our economic affairs on a sound foundation.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Is the Prime Minister aware that we on the SNP Bench would much prefer a General Election in Scotland to a coalition, which would be unhelpful to any of the conditions in Scotland? Is he also aware that the gross domestic product in Scotland has risen in real terms by some 13 per cent. this year as a result of supplies of oil coming ashore? What is the Prime Minister going to do to plough back the benefits of that resource into Scotland in order to create more jobs for the STUC and others?

The Prime Minister: On the political aspect of coalition, I have not yet detected much sense of enthusiasm for it anywhere except in the hearts and minds of those who were once joined with us

but have now left. As far as I am concerned, I have stated the basis upon which I am Leader of this party, and will continue to remain Leader of this party. On no other basis do I remain here.
In respect to Scotland's GDP it is true that this is reflected in a number of ways. I understand that for the first time the average earnings of manual wage earners in Scotland are now exceeding those of England, which is a very satisfying feature. [Interruption.] It is satisfying if we care for the unity of the United Kingdom. In that sense what is important is that Scotland, like Wales or any other part of the United Kingdom, should not feel that it is being treated adversely. For years Scotland has rightly felt that the level of wages in Scotland has been below that of England. Now they are slightly ahead, although not so much as to prompt a breakaway in the North-West, or anywhere else. There is now much greater equality between Scotland and England than there ever was before, and I believe that that helps the unity of the United Kingdom. I shall hope to have the hon. Gentleman's help in making this clear to the Scottish people.

Mr. Rifkind: When the Prime Minister next meets the STUC will he discuss with it the report in Tuesday's Scottish Daily Express that the shipbuilding industry board has recommended to the Government that a necessary consequence of the nationalisation of the shipbuilding industry is that 2,000 jobs in the West of Scotland must be axed? Will the Government even now drop this measure, in order to prevent a further escalation in unemployment both in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom?

The Prime Minister: I hope that the hon. Gentleman, who is usually a fair controversialist, will not relate the number of jobs in shipbuilding to the act of nationalisation, because he knows, as everyone in the House does, that it is only through Government support that a great many jobs are now being safeguarded in the shipbuilding industry. The act of either dropping the Bill or passing it will not affect the economic prospects of the world's shipbuilding industry—[Interruption.] Do hon. Gentlemen really need every syllable spelled out to them? I am beginning to fear that that is true, and that we have to start a long way back.
Hon. Gentlemen know perfectly well that the economics of the world shipbuilding industry will not be altered by this measure. What we have to undertake is a Bill that will ensure as far as possible that the national responsibility for shipbuilding, which we must preserve in these islands—islands as we are—is properly co-ordinated with our job prospects, and that we intend to do.

Mr. Dalyell: Will the Prime Minister talk seriously to the STUC about the point at issue in tonight's opposed Private Business, namely, whether millions of pounds of public money should go into a green fields refinery site at Nigg if there is no demand?

Mr. William Ross: It has already said that it supports it.

The Prime Minister: I would be happy to discuss all these matters with the Scottish TUC if it raised them with me, but I do not think I can lay down the agenda here this afternoon.

CBI

Mr. Adley: asked the Prime Minister how many times he has met the CBI during the Summer Adjournment.

Mr. Aitken: asked the Prime Minister how many times he has met the CBI during the Summer Adjournment.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) on 12th October.

Mr. Adley: Has the Prime Minister noticed the similarity in the content of his recent speeches at Blackpool and Oxford with the content of the CBI document published yesterday entitled "Road to Recovery"? Is he aware that if he had the courage to translate his speeches into actions he would probably attract the support of 75 per cent. of hon. Members in this House?

The Prime Minister: I regret to say that I have not studied the CBI document in detail, but if there is a similarity I am happy to think that my meetings with the CBI have led it to the conclusions that I have long since formed. I hope to continue on that path. A very

important measure of agreement, which I wish to foster in the interests of us all, is that the Government, TUC and CBI at Chequers in November 1975 gave priority to an industrial strategy. We are getting slowly on that path—not nearly fast enough, but it will take a long time, as all sensible hon. Members in the House will know. We must pursue that area of policy. I do not spurn any proposals that come from the CBI. I have recently had proposals jointly from the CBI and the TUC. I believe that a national effort is needed, and this Labour Government will continue to make a national effort.

Mr. Ron Thomas: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the proposal from the CBI to cut public expenditure by £3,000 million could push our economy into the kind of depression that would make the 1920s and 1930s look almost like an economic miracle? Does he also agree that the kind of tax handouts that the CBI is now advocating were tried before by the previous Government and found their way into property, land, commodity speculation and investment overseas?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I think there is a case for a detailed study in respect of the burden of taxes. [HON. GENTLEMEN: "Why?"] Because I am told that the tax burden in this country amounted to 40·9 per cent. of GDP in the fiscal year 1975–76. It is estimated to be much the same for the current year. As a proportion of GDP, the tax burdens in the Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden, for example, are appreciably higher, and in West Germany the burden is comparable. [Interruption.] I do not know whether hon. Gentlemen opposite want the facts or whether they want to live with their prejudices. If this can be demonstrated it seems to me important that people should not be labouring under a misapprehension. If the tax burden is too high, clearly, in order to encourage effort—[Interruption.] Sedentary interruptions do not add to the course of easy debate. If it is too high, clearly we should consider the matter, but as far as I am concerned there is no indication yet that we are much out of line in respect of taxation.
With regard to cutting public expenditure, it ought to be reduced over a period as a proportion of GDP—[HON.


MEMBERS: "Why?"] Sedentary interruptions do not help, even from my own side of the House—because, among other things, of the difficulty of borrowing the necessary resources from elsewhere. I fully agree with my hon. Friend that if there was a catastrophic cut in public expenditure over a very short period there would be serious consequences for the social fabric of this country, and I would not be a party to it. These matters are all, perhaps, more the subject for debate than questions.

Mr. Aitken: Does the Prime Minister realise that millions of British men and women on both sides of British industry may have been stirred and inspired by Mr. Harold Macmillan's call, on television last night, for national unity? Is it not obvious—at least to all those who are not wearing Left Wing blinkers—that the situation in industry and in practically all other economic areas is now far too grave for the British people to go on being bluffed by the Prime Minister's avuncular complacency? Will the right hon. Gentleman now take the initiative to start discussions among all parties and all interested groups to see whether we can find truly national solutions to these deep-seated national problems?

The Prime Minister: I believe that if we can hold to them the policies that the Government are following are bound to produce results. In the past, the Conservatives have not pursued their policies sufficiently long to achieve the results that were necessary. They ran away on a number of previous occasions. They ran away on matters such as the increase in the money supply. They ran away when they gave way to fiscal extravagance as soon as there were difficulties in their economic path. I intend to adhere to the policies that we are following—difficult, uncomfortable and unpleasant though they may be, and bringing a great deal of hardship. I look for very little support from Conservative Members, despite what the hon. Gentleman said.

Mrs. Thatcher: Is the Prime Minister aware that if anyone is running away from reality it is he, and his Government? Will he look at the facts of his administration and recognise that he has brought the pound down to $1·65,

whereas he was left with it at $2·30; he has unemployment at nearly 1,400,000, whereas he was left with it at 600,000; he has the index of industrial production down to below 101, whereas he was left with it at 103? In other words, on all fronts he has followed a disaster course. Does he not agree with his predecessor that most of us would far rather see a Conservative Government with a good majority than any coalition Government?

The Prime Minister: At least the right hon. Lady shares my dislike of coalitions. No, I do not want to see a Conservative Government. I think that it would be a disaster for the country, because neither in their performance in the past nor in their promises for the future lies any hope for the country. I have been looking at the costing of the Conservative tax credit scheme. We all know that the Conservatives intend to cut public expenditure, but is the right hon. Lady aware that the tax credit scheme that she has set out and adopted in her new policy would cost at least an extra £3 billion a year, and possibly as much as £5 billion a year? Does she intend to introduce that scheme or to let it go as a broken promise?

Mrs. Thatcher: The Prime Minister is proving exactly what I said; he is running away from the existing reality. He is running away from the reality of his own record, which has nearly trebled unemployment, brought the pound low, reduced industrial production, and increased inflation.

The Prime Minister: We should acknowledge these facts. The right hon. Lady is correct that these things have happened and are happening in Britain today, and we should certainly examine the reasons for that. But when I contrast the appeal made for national unity by Mr. Harold Macmillan with the behaviour of Conservative Members, I know how spurious is such a call.

Mr. Pardoe: Is the Prime Minister aware that he cannot go on adopting the position that nothing more needs to be done other than what the Government have already done? Is he aware, for instance, that the 15 per cent. minimum lending rate has not stopped the decline in sterling, which is back to the level it was before that measure was taken? Is he further aware of the report in the


International Currency Review that out of £6 billion sterling balances the holders of £4 billion intend to remove them from the country within the next two or three years? Is he further aware that the forward rate for sterling for one year hence is $1·47? In the light of that and the causes that he mentioned, does he not think that single-party government has come to the end of the road?
Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware—this goes for the Opposition Benches too—that the lack of enthusiasm for coalition which he noted in his answer to the first Question is confined only to the professional prizefighters within this ivory tower, and that outside, in the country, the great majority want coalition?

Mr. Speaker: It is Question Time, and we are running over. I propose to allow two more supplementary questions, but not if they are as long as that one.

The Prime Minister: I am not aware of what the hon. Gentleman said about sterling balances. I am grateful to him for writing to me and indicating that he wished to explain the figures that he gave to the House on the minimum lending rate and the money supply on Tuesday. His statement this afternoon did not add much to the known position, that is to say, that the country has a serious problem to face. That can be done only by giving priority to manufacturing industry. We intend to stick to that course. We do not think that we need to depart from it. If there is any help that the Liberal Party cares to give us from time to time in the Lobbies—I never despise anybody—I should be very happy to have it.

Mr. Heffer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the statement made by Harold Macmillan, repeated and supported by Conservatives today, is an indication that the Conservative Party recognises that its present leadership is totally bankrupt of political ideas and that we should be wise to continue with a Labour Government if we want to overcome our problems?

The Prime Minister: I am very content with the quality of the Labour Party leadership. I would not care to comment on the quality opposite.

Mr. Lawson: The Prime Minister has once again referred to the urgent need for a substantial reduction in Government

borrowing. Does he propose to achieve that by further cuts in public expenditure or by further increases in taxation? I trust that he will not run away from answering that question.

The Prime Minister: I would not dream of running away, but I suggest that the hon. Gentleman tables a Question on that matter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE (MR. SPEAKER'S RULING)

Mr. Speaker: I shall now rule on the submission made to me yesterday by the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) that a contempt of the House had been committed either by the Observer newspaper or by certain hon. Members referred to by that newspaper.
The hon. Member submitted that there had been a relaxation of the rule that the complaint must be made at the earliest opportunity, but the Order of the House of 2nd November 1960, quoted on page 348 of "Erskine May" makes quite clear that Mr. Speaker must be satisfied that the notice has been given at the earliest opportunity if precedence is to be given to a complaint as a matter of privilege. This resolution has not been subject to any subsequent modification by the House.
In my opinion, no relevant facts concerning the article emerged yesterday that were not well known on Monday. I cannot, therefore, today give any motion relating to this matter precedence over the Orders of the Day.
The hon. Member put forward other arguments relating to the merits of the matter, but I do not think that these are appropriate for comment from me. I must confine myself, as my predecessors have done, strictly to the issue of precedence, which I cannot allow. As the House knows, it is incumbent upon me to work within the Standing Orders as they are decided by the House itself.

THE OBSERVER (ALLEGATIONS)

The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): Yesterday I gave a preliminary answer to a Private Notice Question


from the Leader of the Liberal Party concerning the position in law of Members of Parliament in relation to allegations of corruption. In the course of the exchanges that followed, the view was expressed that, such allegations having been made and having achieved wide publicity, it would be in the public interest that they should be investigated. I asked for time to consider this, and on further reflection, having now studied what has appeared, I agree with that view.
The reputation of Parliament must be upheld and that means that public concern should be satisfied. This requires a full and thorough investigation into the recent allegations made against hon. Members acting in their parliamentary capacity. The Government will therefore enter into immediate discussions with other parties in the House on how such an investigation shall proceed.
We are here concerned with allegations of improper conduct by Members in the course of proceedings in Parliament since such cannot be the subject of criminal offences. Possible criminal offences were the subject of the statement made on Tuesday by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General.
It is the Government's provisional view that the appropriate body for such an investigation would be a Select Committee of Members of this House, and I propose that there should be early discussions both as to the composition and also the precise terms of reference of such a Committee. An appropriate motion would then be put down on the Order Paper.
It would be our intention that the motion would give to the Committee full powers to send for persons and papers and that it would have such assistance as it required from the Attorney-General, who would not be a member of the Committee.
The Committee's proceedings would not be concerned with the general question to which I referred yesterday; that is to say, what action, if any, the House should take to consider changes in the law following the recommendation of the Salmon Commission.

Mrs. Thatcher: I am grateful to the Prime Minister for making this further statement. Is he aware that we agree with him that the reputation of Parlia-

ment is at stake and that action must be taken to uphold its good name? To that end, speaking for the Conservative Party, we shall therefore co-operate fully with him in consultations about the nature of the Committee, its terms of reference, and its composition.
I should like to make one point about the final sentence of the statement, which referred to the recommendation of the Salmon Commission. Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to make a further statement about any action which he proposes on the recommendation of that Commission?

The Prime Minister: I am obliged to the right hon. Lady for the way in which she responded to what I said. We shall, of course, be willing to have full discussions with all those who are concerned in this matter on the composition of the Committee, its terms of reference, and any other material points.
Regarding the Salmon Commission, I gave an indication yesterday of how we thought we would proceed—namely, to give some advice to the House which it might want to take up. I am open for discussion on this matter. Indeed, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Lord President will be back soon to relieve me of these responsibilities. There need be no difference between us as to how we should proceed on consideration of the Salmon Commission's proposal.

Mr. David Steel: I thank the Prime Minister for the further consideration that he has given to this matter and for his statement.
Will the right hon. Gentleman reflect on what he said yesterday about possible vindictiveness towards Members of the House? I hope that he will accept that, as far as I am aware, it does not exist in any quarter of the House. It is the public interest and the interests of this House that are at stake, particularly when we bear in mind—this is in Hansard of July 1972—that the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), and the then Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), both made it clear that, following the end of criminal proceedings, further investigations were possible. It would have been a denial of that feeling in the House four years ago had nothing been done.
The Royal Commission on Standards of Conduct in Public Life criticised the fact that the Committee of Privileges does not have adequate investigative powers. Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore undertake that, in addition to the welcome availability of the Attorney-General to the Committee, any resolution setting it up will be strong enough to allow it to have as much information on these matters as was available to the Director of Public Prosecutions?

The Prime Minister: I regret it if, in passing, I used a word which caused offence. I did not mean to do that.
On the question of the powers of such a Select Committee if this found favour with the House and the matter does not go to the Committee of Privileges, I repeat that it would have full powers to send for persons and papers. I hope that that covers the points that the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

Mr. Madden: I accept and welcome the statement made by the Prime Minister. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the matters which flowed from the Poulson bankruptcy proceedings were the cause of widespread concern throughout the country? In the light of that widespread concern, will he consider the possibility of establishing a tribunal of inquiry so that publicly that tribunal can investigate all the relevant matters and deal with this matter in a wholly satisfactory way?

The Prime Minister: I think the answer is "No". This matter basically concerns the actions of hon. Members in the performance of their duties in the House. As such, provided that we give any Committee that we appoint the powers to act in this matter and to send for persons and papers, it seems to me that we should take the responsibility for dealing with the actions of hon. Members in this House.

Sir David Renton: Will the Prime Minister, in his further consideration of the findings of the Salmon Report, bear in mind that some years ago a Select Committee of this House made recommendations regarding the responsibilities and powers of the Committee of Privileges, that since then that Committee has sometimes found itself in some difficulty because of the obscure nature of its present powers and responsibilities, and

that this would seem to be a good opportunity for rationalising its position?

The Prime Minister: I regret to say that I do not keep abreast with the Committee of Privileges, but I should have thought that this would be a proper matter for the Committee to report on. If it wished to make further recommendations, the House could take up the matter and change the Committee's powers if it wished to do so.

Mr. Hooson: The Salmon Commission doubted whether a Select Committee has the right powers to investigate these matters as well as the Committee of Privileges. Do the Government intend to pass a resolution in the widest possible terms which will allow the Committee to have all the police files which are at present with the Director of Public Prosecutions so that the matter can be thoroughly investigated?

The Prime Minister: I do not wish to go into too much detail. I have literally had only 24 hours since yesterday to look at these matters. I have tried to give a general answer which I hope will meet the appropriate end that we have in mind. I shall be happy to discuss with the Leader of the Liberal Party or with anyone else what the powers of the Committee should be. I do not wish to be taken further along that road this afternoon.

Mr. English: Will my right hon. Friend explain something which seems a little puzzling? My right hon. Friend is suggesting setting up a Select Committee when one already exists in the Select Committee of Privileges. What is the difference between the Committee which he proposes and the one which exists?
Will my right hon. Friend try to get something done about the report referred to by the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton)? There was a report on privilege—it is no use asking for another—by a Joint Committee of both Houses. Nothing has been done about it. One result, among others, is that if, for example, we go in for broadcasting the proceedings of the House, the BBC will find itself sued for libel. There are many matters in that report, including the power of this House relating to fining and imprisonment. It cannot fine, but it should be able to do so. All this


is in the Joint Report, but nothing has been done about it. The longer nothing is done, the more matters of this character will come up unless my right hon. Friend stirs it up a little.

The Prime Minister: I am not able to comment on the second part of my hon. Friend's question. I must ask him to put it to the Leader of the House, who is no doubt considering these matters.
The Attorney-General, who is a member of the Committee of Privileges, would not be a member of the proposed Select Committee, but he would be available to assist it. That in itself is an important difference. It would also be for the House to consider what powers should be given to this Select Committee which may not necessarily be appropriate to the Committee of Privileges. These are matters to be considered. It seems to me that if we are not to have a Committee of Privileges investigation into these matters at present, another appropriate body set up by the House would be the right way of dealing with them.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Speaker: Business statement—Mr. Merlyn Rees.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): In the absence of the Leader of the House I shall, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, make the business statement. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 25TH OCTOBER—Second Reading of the Retirement of Teachers (Scotland) Bill [Lords] and of the Valuation and Rating (Exempted Classes) Bill [Lords].
Second Reading of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Bill [Lords], which is a consolidation measure.
Motions relating to Safety of Sports Grounds Orders.
TUESDAY 26TH OCTOBER—Remaining stages of the Insolvency Bill [Lords].
Motions on the Northern Ireland Orders relating to Housing and Firearms (Amendment).
WEDNESDAY 27TH OCTOBER—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Race Relations Bill.
THURSDAY 28TH OCTOBER—Remaining stages of the Industry (Amendment) Bill.
Consideration of Lords amendments to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill.
FRIDAY 29TH OCTOBER—Second Reading of the Land Drainage Bill [Lords], which is a consolidation measure.
Remaining stages of the International Carriage of Perishable Foodstuffs Bill [Lords], the National Health Service (Vocational Training) Bill and of the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Bill [Lords].
MONDAY 1ST NOVEMBER—Remaining stages of the Development of Rural Wales Bill [Lords], to be followed by a debate on Welsh Affairs.

Mrs. Thatcher: I thank the Home Secretary for his maiden business statement. As it takes us right up until Monday 1st November and there is clearly still a lot of business to come before the House, may I ask whether it is still his intention that the new Session should open on 17th November? In the absence of the Leader of the House, may I remind the Home Secretary that we are still owed a Supply Day before the House rises?

Mr. Rees: I take note of the right hon. Lady's last question. On Prorogation, it is still our intention to open the new Session then. There is a lot of business coming from the Lords. They have been sitting late and I am sure that they are doing a good job and that they will get the business to us.

Mrs. Thatcher: I hope that there will be no question of guillotining Lords amendments on subjects that we have not been able to discuss.

Mr. Rees: That is not a matter I have put my mind to yet.

Mr. Whitehead: In the event of terms being agreed in the next few days for the takeover of the Observer newspaper by Mr. Rupert Murdoch, will my right hon. Friend arrange for a statement to be made in the House by the Secretary of State


for Trade? Is he aware that there is grave concern, at least on this side of the House, about the accretion of power to a foreign newspaper magnate who has abused that power in his own country?

Mr. Rees: I shall bring that important matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Cormack: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it would be highly regrettable if the guillotine were applied to Lords amendments? Will he arrange for someone to make a statement on Monday about the Government's intentions?

Mr. Rees: There is no need for that yet. Let us see what happens when the amendments come from the Lords.

Mr. Dalyell: In view of the opposed Private Business in the House tonight, which involves the whole question of refinery capacity in this country, may we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Energy on green-field sites? It is impossible to come to any meaningful conclusion about a refinery at Nigg, at a cost of £400,000 of taxpayers' money per job, unless we have a picture of the overall strategy.

Mr. Rees: I know that my hon. Friend feels strongly about this subject, and it is important. I suggest that he makes those points tonight when the Minister concerned will be able to deal with them.

Mr. Lawson: In his speech at Ruskin College on Monday the Prime Minister appealed for a major debate on education in general and the failure of progressive education in particular. When shall we have that debate?

Mr. Rees: The bit of paper I have here says "Not next week", which proves that I can read. The subject which the Prime Minister raised is important, and it is important that it should be discussed. It is not just a question of the failure of progressive methods. It is far more fundamental than that. There must be a chance to debate the issue, but I suggest that all hon. Members read my right hon. Friend's speech and then I shall look at the matter again.

Mr. Stephen Ross: The Endangered Species (Import and Export) Bill [Lords] comes up for discussion fourth on the list on Friday. Will the right hon. Gentle-

man ensure that sufficient time is given to it for Report stage and Third Reading?

Mr. Rees: I understand that it is the intention to suspend the rule in order to do that.

Mr. Ward: As 20 deaths are taking place each week in which we do not have a seat belt law in this country, will the right hon. Gentleman find time for the House to get that measure through?

Mr. Rees: I shall look at it and see what I can do.

Mr. Graham Page: Can time be found for a debate on the Select Committee's Report on the Abortion Bill?

Mr. Rees: It is not the intention to debate the matter next week although it is an important matter. The short answer is "No".

Mr. Skinner: While carrying out his temporary duties, will my right hon. Friend ask the Leader of the House whether we can have a debate on corruption and in particular on the activities of John Poulson so that we as a House, as distinct from the Front Benches, can decide what action should be taken? Surely what is needed is a tribunal of inquiry such as that set up in 1947 relating to Sydney Stanley which, contrary to the Prime Minister's view, included Members of Parliament as well.

Mr. Rees: It is not just a question of the usual channels. My right hon. Friend will be prepared to listen to my hon. Friend about the nature of the Committee. It would not be appropriate to have a debate. The important thing is to get the Select Committee going.

Mr. Peyton: The whole House will be interested to hear the Government's views on the post-drought situation. Perhaps the House can be offered an opportunity of hearing the Government's views. Will the right hon. Gentleman also apply his mind to how he will fulfil the commitment to have a debate on foreign affairs before the end of the Session?
I offer him my respectful congratulations on having so far avoided thinking of the guillotine in connection with Lords amendments. I also congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the cleanliness of his mental processes, and I hope that it will continue.

Mr. Rees: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's congratulations. I shall look at the possibility of a foreign affairs debate. On the drought, I understand that the Minister is considering a report from the National Water Council on the water supply prospects for 1977. I believe that there will be a statement soon, which the House should await before having a debate.

Mr. Blenkinsop: When are we to have the promised debate on the Prayer, signed by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, on the subject of the poultry meat hygiene regulations, which is a matter of very deep concern affecting our whole environmental health service? We were promised a debate, and time is now running out. If we cannot have it next week, when can we have it?

[That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Poultry Meat (Hygiene) Regulations 1976 (S.1., 1976, No. 1209), dated 29th July 1976, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th August, be annulled.]

Mr. Rees: I have looked carefully into this matter and I find that it is possible for the House to discuss it tomorrow, although it is not one of the Prayers on the Order Paper for tomorrow.

Mr. Blenkinsop: No.

Mr. Rees: I understand that it is possible for the subject to be discussed tomorrow by nature of the terms of reference of the debate, but I will look again at the matter carefully and will read what has been said.

Mr. Blenkinsop: But does not my right hon. Friend recognise that the situation is wholly unacceptable? Is he not aware that there has to be a proper debate with the right to vote on this matter of deep urgency?

Mr. Rees: I see the point about the right to vote, and I know the nature of the problem, but I shall read the report or listen carefully if anyone mentions it tomorrow. I understand the urgency of the matter, and I am studying the situation.

Mr. Adley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some 50 members of the staff of British Airways were forced

to come to this House this week to express their deep concern and despair because they find themselves in the position of being about to have a closed shop imposed on them without their having had the opportunity for a ballot or of representing their views to the management? Will he take into account that many of these people are concerned about the loss of individual liberty? Will he ask the Secretary of State for Employment to make a statement to the House about the effect of closed shops on the staffs of the nationalised industries?

Mr. Rees: I understand that the overwhelming majority of the employees of British Airways want it this way, but I will have a word with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. There is a general responsibility here towards the employment of the staff.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is great concern about the way in which Welsh affairs are being handled in the House? A week on Monday the so-called Welsh day is to be superimposed on the Development of Rural Wales Bill [Lords]. This shabby way of treating Welsh affairs is one of the reasons for the demand for devolution.

Mr. Rees: I have looked at this matter and—if I may use a football term—I understand that on that Monday injury time will be granted at the end of the debate to ensure that there is enough time for all Welsh Members who wish to speak.

Mr. Hastings: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the increasing concern throughout the country about the mounting scale of vandalism? When may we expect a debate?

Mr. Rees: My departmental responsibility includes dealing with vandalism, as the hon. Gentleman knows. I shall be talking to the chief constables of the country very shortly about it. I should be interested in a debate, but it cannot come yet. I agree that this is a matter to which we should put our minds, but it is detailed and complicated. I found a booklet on the subject when I went to the Home Office, and I will send the hon. Gentleman a copy.

Mr. Jay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, on the question of the poultry meat


hygiene regulations, the Leader of the House gave a virtual undertaking before the recess that there would be a proper debate on the Prayer? Is he further aware that this is quite a different subject from the EEC regulations which we are to discuss tomorrow? It is essential that before 2nd November we have a proper opportunity to debate and vote on the Prayer.

Mr. Rees: I have seen the letter which my right hon. Friend has written to the Leader of the House. This is an important matter and I will see what I can do.

Mr. Marten: I wish to reinforce the point made by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay). The last day on which a debate can take place on this subject is 2nd November. What we are after is the ability of the House to take a decision by means of a vote. The Home Secretary is right in saying that we can discuss the subject tomorrow, but we can take no decision then because the Government are holding the debate on the motion for the Adjournment. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a totally wrong way to proceed?

Mr. Rees: I understand the problem, and I repeat that I will see what I can do.

Mr. Hooky: Will my right hon. Friend find an early date for a debate on the Sixth Report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution concerning nuclear hazards, which raises enormously important issues of public policy?

Mr. Rees: With the problems of the next two or three weeks, it will not be possible to have a debate, but it is an important matter and I will discuss it with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy.

Mr. Michael Morris: May I press the right hon. Gentleman to move forward from a hoped-for statement on the drought to a commitment that there will be one?

Mr. Rees: There will be a statement. I will check carefully as to when it will be.

Mr. Lee: On the question of the Select Committee, arising from the Prime Minister's statement, I do not think that it is clear whether the matter is to be de-

bated. Will the motion to set up the Committee be tabled very soon indeed? One important aspect of the urgency is that I understand that the hon. Member who was named in the Observer article has taken out writs for libel, and there may be questions of conflict of jurisdiction.

Mr. Rees: I understand that point, having played a part in the discussions. The best way is to take up the offer made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and as acting Leader of the House I will take these matters into account. The possible conflict to which my hon. Friend has referred was discussed. With his legal knowledge, the more my hon. Friend can add to the knowledge we have of the situation, the better.

Mr. Aitken: The right hon. Gentleman said that he would look into the need for a debate on foreign affairs. When he does so, he will find that it was a firm commitment. Will he ensure that it takes place before the Prorogation?

Mr. Rees: I will look into the matter. There was a debate on Rhodesian affairs yesterday.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Regarding the Leader of the Opposition's suggestion that we should guillotine Lords amendments, would my right hon. Friend think in terms of guillotining the House of Lords itself, or at least its hereditary members?
In view of the representations made by the TUC and the CBI on selective import controls, can we have a Government statement next week?

Mr. Rees: I cannot make a promise on that latter point. As for my hon. Friend's question about the House of Lords, I think the best thing I can do at the moment is to say "Let us wait and see." The Government are determined to get their business and will find a means of getting it through.

Mr. Michael Latham: Can we have a debate soon on housing policy? At the beginning of August, the Government changed their policy by cutting the council-house building programme and local authority mortgages and no one knows what the new policy is.

Mr. Rees: I will have a word on that aspect with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment,


but in view of the time factor it will not be easy to have a debate. However, there may be other ways of clearing up the hon. Gentleman's mind.

Mr. Townsend: When shall we be able to debate the report of the Select Committee on Cyprus? Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that the report, apart from dealing with the Cyprus affair, had important comments on the making of British foreign policy?

Mr. Rees: Having studied last week's business statement and the discussion on it, I am sure that there are real problems about the reports of Select Committees, and I am seized of the importance of the matter. But I see no prospect of debating the report on Cyprus in the near future.

BRENT (HEALTH SERVICES)

Mr. Pavitt: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which should have urgent consideration; namely
The situation arising from the dispute between the Brent Community Health Council and the area health authority which could affect every hospital in the country, and the need to arrest the changes now taking place in Willesden.
It is specific in the sense that only yesterday I received an opinion from learned counsel which showed that the action being pursued by the area health authority may well be ultra vires and that the various ways in which this will affect the health of 250,000 people in my borough are most specific to each family within my constituency.
I would not be raising this matter if it concerned only one hospital, but it affects

the whole organisation between 90 area health authorities throughout the land and the responsibilities, rights and duties of community health councils, because this case could affect every hospital at present being discussed for reorganisation, closure or some other purpose.
The matter requires urgent consideration because of the specific case I brought to your attention, Mr. Speaker. Action is already about to take place which will probably mean that no further outcome from the dispute at present, and where councils are making representations, will affect the situation, and the likelihood is that, irrespective of the outcome of the dispute, action will have already been taken which will pre-empt subsequent reversals of policy. It will be too late to make any change then.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman seeks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which he thinks should have urgent consideration; namely,
The situation arising from the dispute between the Brent Community Health Council and the area health authority which could affect every hospital in the country, and the need to arrest the changes now taking place in Willesden.
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the Standing Order, but to give no reasons for my decision. I do not deal with the merits of the particular case but with whether it shall have precedence over the business of the House.
I have given careful consideration to the representations that the hon. Gentleman has made, but I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order, and therefore I cannot submit his application to the House.

Orders of the Day — ENERGY BILL [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing committee), considered.

New Clause 1

ENERGY CONSERVATION

(1) For the purpose set out in subsection (2) below and subject to the provisions of subsections (3) and (4) below, the Secretary of State may make orders regulating or prohibiting the use of any substances mentioned in subsection (1) of section 1 of this Act or of electricity.

(2) The purposes mentioned in subsection (1) of this section is the conservation of energy when to the overall economic advantage of the United Kingdom.

(3) Before making any such order the Secretary of State shall consult with organisations in the United Kingdom appearing to him to represent those who will be affected by the order, including both consumers and suppliers of energy, and such other organisations as he thinks appropriate.

(4) When laying an order made under this section before Parliament, the Secretary of State shall also include a statement outlining what, in his opinion, will be the likely effect of the order and its economic justification.

(5) The Secreary of State shall for each financial year prepare and lay before Parliament a report of—

(a) research and development undertaken during that year by or on behalf of the Secretary of State relating to energy conservation, and any firm proposals for research and development of this kind in future years;
(b) action taken by the Secretary of State during that year to promote energy conservation by advertising campaigns and other educational activities and any firm proposals for further promotion of this kind in future years;
(c) progress made during that year both nationally and within the public sector towards greater efficiency in energy use and an assessment of the progress which the Secretary of State considers should be achieved in future years;
(d) orders in force under this section and the justification for the continuance of each of them'.—[Mr. Rost.]

Brought up, and read the First Time.

4.10 p.m.

Mr. Peter Rost: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With the new clause we are taking Government Amendment No. 1, in Clause 1, page 1, line 17, at end insert:
(1A) Orders under subsection (1) above regulating or prohibiting the use of any of the substances mentioned in the subsection, or of electricity, may be made at any time but only where it appears to the Secretary of State to be desirable for the purpose of conserving energy.
Subject to this, orders under the subsection may be made only when an Order in Council under section 3 of this Act is in force.
(1B) When no Order in Council under section 3 is in force the Secretary of State shall before making an order under subsection (1) consult with organisations in the United Kingdom appearing to him to represent those who will be affected by the order, including both consumers and suppliers of energy, and such other organisations as he thinks appropriate.'
and the following amendments to Amendment No. 1:

Amendment (a), in subsection (1A), at end of first sentence, insert:
'to the overall economic advantage of the United Kingdom'.

Amendment (b), at end add:
'(1C) When laying before Parliament an order made under subsection (1) above the Secretary of State shall also include a statement outlining what in his opinion will be the likely effect of the order and its economic justification'.

Amendment (c), at end add:
'(1D) The Secretary of State shall for each financial year prepare and lay before Parliament a report of—

(a) research and development undertaken during that year by or on behalf of the Secretary of State relating to energy conservation and any firm proposals for research and development of this kind for future years;
(b) action taken by the Secretary of State during that year to promote energy conservation by advertising campaigns and other educational activities and any firm proposals for further promotion of this kind in future years;
(c) progress made during that year both nationally and within the public sector towards greater efficiency in energy use and an assessment of the progress which the Secretary of State considers should be achieved in future years; and
(d) orders in force under section 1(1)A of this Act and the justification for the continuation of each of them'.

Mr. Rost: In case the Government are surprised that the Opposition have tabled only one new clause to this important Bill, perhaps I should reassure them that


it is not because we regard the legislation as so satisfactory that amendments and new clauses could not have been proposed, but simply because we wish to concentrate the attention of the House and the Government on what we regard as the most important inadequacy of this legislation. For this reason we feel it right to concentrate our attention on one new clause only, dealing with the need for greater priority for energy conservation.
The House will recall that in the Queen's Speech a year ago we were promised an Energy Bill that would deal with a policy for energy conservation. We were given an Energy Bill. We have it before us now, on Report. The Bill that we were promised, we were told in the Queen's Speech, would be introduced in order to meet the United Kingdom's obligations under the international energy programme. The Bill deals with that very adequately.
We were told, secondly, that it would be introduced in order to control energy supplies during any shortage or emergency. Again, the legislation gives the Government more than adequate controls in that respect.
We were promised, thirdly, that the Bill would implement energy conservation policies. We have looked very hard at the Bill and we find that apart from one or two minor matters it is nothing more than a hotch-potch, dealing with the first and second objectives but with hardly anything on the third objective.
As if to add weight to that argument, the House may be amazed to know that the original Bill as presented to the House did not even mention conservation. At least, we have not found any mention of it in the Bill.
We believe that it is essential that the Government meet their obligations under the Loyal Address, and therefore we have tabled a new clause which we hope will concentrate greater emphasis on a strategy for energy conservation. We have tabled it because we do not believe that the Government have taken energy conservation seriously enough so far.
4.15 p.m.
We should make it clear that in the new clause we are not proposing to seek to give the Government powers for con-

trols or restrictions. We believe that energy conservation can best be achieved not by legislation but by a sensible system of economic pricing, by the right sorts of incentives, by giving proper priorities to investment, by the removal of disincentives, and by cost-effective investment. These are the more important ways in which one can achieve energy conservation, rather than by the more negative restrictive approach through legislation.
We do not believe that by energy conservation we have to achieve a reduction in use. We are not suggesting that people should discomfort themselves in any way, or that the nation's productive effort should be in any way affected. Quite the contrary. Energy conservation really means a greater efficiency in the production and use of energy, which would effect savings in public expenditure and make it less necessary to invest public resources to meet extra demand, which will not be required if conservation reduces that demand or holds it down.
Our interpretation of energy conservation, as we have outlined it in the clause, is that greater priority should be given to conservation by reducing waste as a result of a more rational use of energy, rather than by restrictive legislation.
We believe it is desirable that we should have greater emphasis on energy conservation for, first, the shorter-term reason—the obvious one of the balance of payments. I am sure that the Secretary of State will be as aware as anybody on the Government side of the desperate need for this country to do what it can to bridge some of the gap in the balance of payments. We know very well that any sensible improvement in the use of our energy will make a very substantial and short-term contribution to the balance of payments, either by relieving imports or by making more exports of energy available. One per cent. of energy saved in the current year in terms of cost represents well over £100 million.
When we bear in mind the desirability for energy conservation, the second most important consideration must be that the supply and use of energy now absorb nearly 15 per cent. of our gross domestic product—a figure that has been rising in recent years as the cost of energy has increased.
It is, therefore, far more important now and in future years that we get our energy factors right than it has been in the past. The whole competitive position of the country will be seriously jeopardised if our energy is not produced and used as efficiently as in other countries which are competing against us.
When the supply and use of energy represented a lower proportion of the gross national product, in previous years, when energy was cheap and more plentiful, this factor was not as important as it is now, or as it will become increasingly in future years.
The third reason why it is so desirable that we persuade the Government to give greater priority to energy conservation is for the longer term, and I regard this as the most important reason. I believe that a sensible longer-term policy for cutting out some of the wasteful uses and practices in energy consumption will buy time.
Anybody who attended, as I did, the Secretary of State's National Energy Conference, and who attempts to follow the advice of experts from all over the country, cannot fail to have noticed one fact that emerged from that conference. It was that no two experts appear to agree. Everybody differs. The people who ought to be in a position to advise the non-technical people such as ourselves—the politicians who are in the midst of the problem—still cannot agree about any forecasts of the likely demand for energy or the available resources for energy.
We do not know whether there will be an energy gap, or, if there is to be one when it will be. We do not know which of the longer-term options will be the right one in the field of nuclear power, or whether we should take the longer-term coal option. We do not know how soon alternative energy sources will become available, or at what cost.
We cannot, therefore, really say at this stage where our priorities should go. We cannot tell whether we should go now for the fast breeder reactor or develop advanced coal technology. We do not know when fusion will be available, or at what cost, or whether tidal or waste power, wind or solar power, will become alternative options, to what extent, or over what time scale.
On the other hand, it is fair to say that developments are moving so fast in this area that within the next five or 10 years we shall have the answers to a great many of these questions. For example, within that time we are bound to know more about the resources available to us on the Continental Shelf. We shall know by then some of the answers on the fast breeder reactor and on the alternative resources.
Therefore, a policy for energy conservation gives us the most valuable asset of all. It will buy time. It will allow us to phase in to the alternative options more easily over the long-term time scale and, therefore, allow us to make the vast investments that will be required, make them more cost-effective and get some of those options right rather than wrong. The argument, therefore, for buying time is so important that it justifies a certain change of priorities in Government strategy in order to avoid rushing in wrong directions and into the wrong decisions earlier than we would otherwise need to, at a huge cost in the long run.
Such a policy of energy conservation is not suggested as an alternative to the major suggestions that will have to be made in the longer term. Obviously, energy conservation, even allowing for the vast waste of resources that goes on at the moment, can make only a marginal contribution. But, over a longer term, it can make an increasingly important one. It will give us the better odds that we shall need desperately to get the longer-term decisions right and, by doing that, will save national capital resources not just of energy but of other resources in the long run and, of course, produce over the shorter term the substantial benefits that are obvious to us all.
For this reason, we propose a new clause which we hope will discipline the Government and the Department of Energy. Having referred to the Department, may I say how pleased we are to see the new Under-Secretary in his place? We know that he has taken a very close and enthusiastic interest in these matters. I am especially pleased to be making these remarks in his presence because I know that he will be very receptive to them.
As I said, the clause will discipline the Government and the Department to


accept what so many experts and advisory bodies with differing and varying points of view are saying and have been saying in recent years. In the recent work that it has been doing, the Select Committee on Science and Technology has been saying this. Even Ministers have admitted that conservation is not simply a matter of spending a small amount on publicity but that it needs a longer-term strategy. It needs the coordination of Government Departments and it needs cost-effective investment. In other words, it needs a bit of stick and a great deal of carrot—not so many controls but a great deal of financial incentive.
Our clause asks the Government, first, to consult widely before making restrictive orders in what they imagine to be the interests of energy conservation, so that if regulations are to come from this Government we get some justification for them by having proper consultation first.
Secondly, we ask in the clause that the Government attempt to justify the effects of any measures that they introduce on economic grounds and on grounds of energy conservation. If I may give a specific example of what should be happening, in the interests of energy conservation the French returned to Summer Time far earlier than we did They assessed beforehand, by detailed work, that they would save a specific amount of energy, and they justified it on those grounds. If new measures like this are recommended by outside bodies, the Government should attempt to justify them to Parliament before implementing them.
But, even more important, our clause proposes the introduction of a completely new concept. It is the concept of an annual report to Parliament on the progress that the Government are making in energy conservation. Such an annual report, which would be subject to debate, would in my view be far more valuable than a series of arbitrary restrictive measures, controls or legislation. An annual report would give the Government an opportunity to state their case on a forward rolling programme and to justify that following a debate.
Perhaps I may briefly list some of the matters that I regard as suitable for

inclusion in an annual report and, in doing so, justify the reasons of the Opposition for putting forward the new clause.
An annual report to Parliament should include an estimate of the annual demand, supply and cost of energy on the best figures available—in other words, an annual energy budget. This would also include estimated targets of percentage energy savings as a result of less wasteful practices.
Secondly, this report to Parliament should give progress on the estimated conservation benefits resulting from Government measures already introduced. We already have some regulations, and it is only right that the Government should attempt to justify the continuation of these various measures by putting before Parliament once a year a report giving the reasons for them and the contribution that they have already made. For example, we should have in such a report details of the progress that is being made nationally in thermal insulation for new and old buildings and public and private buildings. The Building Research Establishment report which came out a year ago gave a very strong lead on how this should be done over a long-term programme, and an annual report to Parliament would keep the Government on their toes by making them report on whether more incentives were needed and whether sufficient progress was being made.
Such a report to Parliament could indicate the progress being made in industry and in the nationalised industries to adopt more energy-saving processes, plant and investment. If no progress were being made, perhaps there would be an argument for looking at the various incentive schemes—the Government loan scheme and the investment allowance scheme—and seeing whether there were still too many disincentives which should be removed.
Such an annual report to Parliament should also include an assessment of the outside advice being received by the Government and what action the Government were taking on it—or not taking on it. We now have some excellent outside bodies, partly set up by the Department itself—the Advisory Council on Research and Development, the Advisory Council on Energy Conservation, the Plowden


Report on the electricity supply industry, and the recent Building Research Establishment report on the economic assessment of the utilisation of power station reject heat. These are the kinds of reports and recommendations which apparently are very valuable, but the Government might be tempted to ignore or neglect them unless they were prodded once a year to comment on why they were not acting on these various recommendations, including those of Parliament's own Select Committee on Energy Conservation. A report annually on the action being taken on the advice proffered by various outside bodies would be very valuable.

Mr. Neil Macfarlane: My hon. Friend is making his point extremely lucidly, and it may be that his request is well substantiated in view of the oft-declared aim and desire of the Secretary of State for more open government. My hon. Friend's idea of an annual report appears to be endorsed by that attitude.

Mr. Rost: Indeed, and that is a matter that I shall touch upon in my concluding remarks. I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend.

Mr. J. Grimond: I have been extremely interested in the hon. Gentleman's comprehensive statement of what should be included in such a report, and I have considerable sympathy with the new clause, but, as a Back Bench Member, I already receive a great many reports, and I am hesitant about encouraging many others. If this report is to cover all the matters that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, is he satisfied that it can be done with the present information available and the existing staff, or will it entail a further expansion of the Department? We are all anxious to avoid that. What is more, does the hon. Gentleman feel that, having received this report, there is any chance of Parliament ever discussing it? If not, perhaps we could have an Energy Committee to discuss it. Finally, does the hon. Gentleman think that all the matters that he wants in this report will be sufficiently precise for it to be possible for the Government to quantify them annually?

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Rost: The enlarged Department of Energy should be adequately equipped to provide such an annual report. We do not have much hope of its getting its policy right, anyway, if it is not capable of producing an annual report on what it is or is not doing. I also believe that Parliament is the right place for such an annual debate, rather than having it shunted upstairs to a Committee. The matter is now vital to our national economy. It is not an ancillary subject, but is fundamental to the country's future. Therefore, there is no reason for us to be hesitant in proposing our new clause.
The report should include information on research and development during the year and on future programmes. There has been a great deal of criticism that our energy research and development effort has not been directed as it should have been, and particularly that not enough of it has gone into energy conservation, as opposed to developing new sources of energy. For example, if we had allocated more fluidised bed combustion techniques we might now be making a bigger contribution to our energy resources and to using them less wastefully.

Mr. Nigel Forman: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the best illustrations of his point is the gross imbalance over recent years between the sum invesed in research and development for the nuclear industry and that for the benign sources of energy to which he has just referred?

Mr. Rost: That is exactly the point I was trying to make, but I am trying to be brief and therefore did not develop it.
The annual report would be all the more valuable if it included a reference to the pricing structure of energy and the energy industries, if it said whether the Government thought they had the balance right, in order to achieve the incentives required, and whether there was justification for modifications of energy tariffs, the car tax, and so on. These matters should be reviewed annually by Parliament in the context of an overall strategy for energy conservation rather than be the subject of arbitrary legislation and controls and regulations from time to time.
A further area that would be a valuable subject for an annual review is progress on removing the main restraints to the more sensible use of our energy. This subject includes the application of reject heat from our electricity supply generating system, the extension of district heating, and the removal of disincentives to industry and individuals to use energy more efficiently.
Finally, the annual report should compare the progress being made in this country and internationally. We are well aware that some countries, particularly the United States, are not making the progress that many of us feel they would like to make towards more efficient use of energy, but some European countries are making better progress than we are, particularly in the application of waste heat and direct fiscal incentives for energy conservation, including the use of insulation. An annual report on what was happening in the IEA and EEC would be a useful basis for sensible discussion.
To sum up, we see nothing in the clause that the Government could not find acceptable. In principle it goes no further than they have already gone in their declared objectives from time to time and in speeches by energy Ministers. What is new is the obligation to have an annual report and to air the matter in Parliament. If the national energy conference was a constructive innovation, as most people would probably agree, this should be even more constructive. The energy industries absorb a large proportion of the GNP and an important slice of investment resources, much of it now in the public sector. Therefore, it is the more important that Parliament should have a system of control, or at least an annual debate, in addition to the outside views and opinions expressed at annual energy conference, if that is what we are to have.
As the world economic balance has been so upset by the fivefold oil price increase, it has become even more vital to our economy that we get our energy strategy right and that we do more to invest in less wasteful production and consumption practices. As so many of the energy industries are now within the Government's area of decision-taking, rather than the private sector, it is justifi-

able to have an annual review by Parliament. The days have passed when we had simply an annual report from each of the nationalised energy industries, and perhaps an energy White Paper every 10 years.
The occasional debate on a specific energy topic is not good enough now if Parliament is to take a constructive and sensible interest in this increasingly important aspect of our economy. Parliament should demand an annual report reviewing the Government's policy, strategy and forecasts, in order to scrutinise the Government's function in such a vital sector of the national economy, especially as the longer-term problems of supply and demand, and the various options that will have to be taken are not static but dynamic. They cannot be easily projected or planned, and therefore must be reviewed regularly.
Recent experience has emphasised that we have made mistakes in major areas of energy technology and investment. The nuclear strategy has proved that. I hope that the Government will accept the clause as a reasonable and constructive contribution by the Opposition to improving the function of Parliament, the process of monitoring. The long-term decisions in energy matters are now too vital to continue to be relegated to the low priority that they have had in the Parliamentary timetable. I know that the Secretary of State and the new Under-Secretary will accept that, because they understand. There is much justification for the hon. Gentleman's welcoming the clause. I hope that it will have not only his backing but the backing of both sides of the House.

The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Dr. John A. Cunningham): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) for his kind words about my appointment to the Department of Energy. The hon. Gentleman and I were for a number of years colleagues on the Select Committee on Science and Technology and we worked closely together on many of the subjects to which he has referred. I hope that I shall be able to convince him that in my new post I now hope to put into effect some of the things I said in those days.
The hon. Gentleman spent a great deal of time talking about conservation policy, and it is perhaps appropriate that I


should be the Minister chosen to reply on that topic because conservation policy is one of my principal responsibilities in the Department. We agree about the importance of conservation policy. In terms of long-term strategy, we look to our coal reserves, the nuclear industry and conservation policy as playing equal parts in our consideration. I wish to underline that it now costs the United Kingdom £12 million a day to import oil. If we bear that figure in mind every day of our lives in the way we use energy, it should bring home to us the importance of conservation.
The Labour Government have a good record on this score. In December 1974 the then Secretary of State for Energy set out the guidelines for the Government's conservation policy. In July of this year the Government published a White Paper in response to the report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, of which the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East and I were members. Therefore, nobody can say that the Government have been slow to recognise the importance of conservation policy or to respond to the situation or to the comments of the Select Committee.
In addition, we have made sure that energy is now economically priced for consumers, and part of our policy is aimed at the provision of advice and information to consumers. On Tuesday of this week I launched a film for use in British industry dealing with energy auditing. We have received a tremendous number of inquiries in response to our "Save It" campaign. The next round of our advice to industry will be based on the need for those in industry to recognise the importance of quantifying the use of energy so that industry may know exactly how much is being used—why, where and for what purposes—and how much energy per unit of output is necessary industrially. That is in the forefront of our minds. The next phase of our campaign will be aimed in that direction.
4.45 p.m.
As a good example of our conservation effort, the Property Services Agency of the Department of the Environment has taken major strides in reacting to the situation in terms of Government property and estates. We have introduced optimum start control systems and within

a year of their installation there has been a great increase in the amount of energy saving. Therefore, the Government are practising what they preach.
I am the chairman of an interdepartmental committee of Ministers representing Government Departments, and we shall discuss how to co-ordinate our efforts in the Government and in the various agencies for which we are responsible. I think that the Government's example is a good one. Further, we have taken steps in research and development monitoring and in guiding energy conservation research. We are setting the standards and, indeed, are encouraging the British Standards Institution and other bodies to develop conservation standards. Voluntary codes are being worked out, and we believe that we must devote even more attention to these matters than has been directed to them in the past. I am not saying that my predecessors were lax, but I suggest that in conservation terms we now have before us tremendous opportunities. I believe that we have faced the problem in the last two years, but there are still many areas that can be fruitfully explored.
The Government have been active in promoting the work of the Energy Conservation Unit of my Department and of our Energy Information Division. We wish to make clear our determination to pursue energy conservation. Furthermore, we have an Energy Technology Division engaged in examining the more efficient use of energy. As the Minister responsible for the British gas industry, I have since my appointment visited the Midlands and have seen the research station at Solihull and also the establishment at Watson House in London. I am impressed with the research put by British Gas into new ideas for more efficient use of that product as a fuel and for the conservation of gas used in industry, commerce and domestically.
I wish to refer to the work of bodies such as ACEC, the Advisory Council for Energy Conservation, under the chairmanship of Sir William Hawthorne, and also to the activities of ACORD, the Advisory Council on Research and Development. Therefore, we are very much committed to energy conservation.
I do not remember very much about the policy of conservation under the Conservative Government. I remember


the Minister responsible at the time commenting on the efficacy of brushing one's teeth in the dark. I believe that during the time that we have been in office we have shown a fundamental concern for energy conservation.
Let me turn to the specific points raised by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East. He mentioned the need for a report about energy conservation. The Department of Energy issued a report on that subject and it is available to the House. If the hon. Gentleman believes that this area of activity can be improved, we shall re-examine the matter. However, I agree with the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) that hon. Members—and certainly Ministers and officials—are submerged under official documents and reports. I do not accept the idea that by having another conservation report we shall make a radical alteration in the situation. However, I give the assurance that I shall examine the position.

Mr. Rost: Would the Minister accept that the main purpose of introducing the obligation to present an annual report to Parliament would be to place an obligation upon the Government to hold an annual debate?

Dr. Cunningham: I do not think it would. We have just been hearing the Home Secretary saying how impossible it has been to find time for a debate on the report of the Select Committee on Cyprus. The hon. Gentleman and I know how difficult it has been for some of the reports of the Select Committee on Science and Technology to be debated in the House. There is no reason why energy conservation policies should not be debated in the House, whether on an Opposition Supply Day, by means of Private Members' motions or on occasions like this. I welcome any proposals from the Opposition aimed at improving our approach to conservation policy.
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East and the hon. Member for Carshalton (Mr. Forman) referred to our expenditure on energy research and development. As they will both know, historically it is true that a large amount of this expenditure has been devoted to our thermal reactor programme and to nuclear fission generally. They will also

know that our thermal and fast reactor programmes are currently under review. We have been giving increasing amounts of money for research into the so-called benign sources of energy and renewable resources. These things are important. We are keeping an eye on that area of expenditure. I remind hon. Members that at the same time we are being pressed to conserve and reduce public expenditure. We do not have unlimited resources.
Turning to the new clause, the House will recall that amendments of this kind have been moved during the various stages of the Bill. In general, the Government have resisted them. Included in some of the new clauses that have been brought forward were provisions which we have been glad to accept in some way or other and incorporate by way of Government amendment. One example is the provision that permanent powers should be exercisable for energy conservation purposes only. That is a provision which is now in the Bill.
The first effect of the new clause would be to take the energy conservation provisions out of Clause 3 and put them into a new clause. We are prepared to go some way with this idea. We are proposing an amendment, which I shall be moving later, which partly covers this. We proposed in Committee an amendment to move these provisions out of Clause 3 and into Clause 1. We believed that this was the most sensible way of meeting the wish expressed earlier that the conservation powers should not be in close juxtaposition to emergency provisions, as they are at present. We still believe that that is so and that the right place for conservation powers is in Clause 1.
The new clause also seeks to require that conservation powers should be exercised only when the overall economic advantage of the United Kingdom is involved. I do not think that any Government needs legislation to tell them to act in the interests of the overall economic advantage of the United Kingdom. Certainly this Government do not. We do not see any need for that provision to be written into the Bill. The consultation procedures built in and the normal parliamentary procedures seem to allow fully for the expression of views and for Government decisions to be subject to parliamentary vote. There will be no lack of


opportunity for a judgment on the national interest to be expressed. If there was such a lack, I am sure that most right hon. and hon. Tory Members would not be sitting where they are at the moment.

Mr. Macfarlane: The definition of the word "conservation" is difficult. For the past five minutes I have listened with approval to the long list that the Minister has read out. It has basically been based upon the "Save It" campaign over the past two years. What my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) was propounding was that there was a requirement for the Government to assess the nation's resources over the next few years.

Dr. Cunningham: I take the point. The list was not wholly in connection with the "Save It" campaign. I spoke a little about the more efficient use of the resources that we have. That is important in the longer term. I agree that we need to assess our resources, particularly fossil fuels, and ensure that we conserve them in the best interests not only of this generation but of future generations.

Mr. Macfarlane: That is real conservation.

Dr. Cunningham: I agree. We must also ensure that we get the maximum economic return for this country from our reserves. It is often said that we should not leave problems from the nuclear industry for our children and grandchildren. What greater problem could there be than to leave them without any fossil fuel reserves at all?
The House will see that the new clause goes on to quote from the present provisions of the Bill and then to seek a statement, with any order, of likely effects and economic justification. We have already said that we shall make known our best assessment of effects and our judgment on economic benefits. If reasonably precise figures can be given, we shall give them. It is not in our interests not to give this information. As the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland has said, it is often not possible to give precise figures, and to do so might well unwittingly mislead. We do not want to be tied down, but where possible we shall give this information.
The next point concerns the reason for not needing a provision in the Bill to make a formal legal requirement of some of the points the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East referred to when he talked about annual reports. There is a section in the annual report dealing with conservation, and this is available to the House. The trouble with annual reports is that they proliferate. We do not want yet another annual report. We would broadly agree, at least I hope so, with the main purpose of the new clause, or what seems to be its main purpose—which the Government are to a large extent already achieving. Later I shall be moving Amendment No. 1, which deals with the same issue. I hope, therefore, that the new clause will be withdrawn and that the House will agree to Amendment No. 1.
The purpose of Amendment No. 1 is to transfer the energy conservation provisions from Clause 3 to Clause 1. In earlier debates there was criticism suggesting that the conservation provisions should be taken out. This would leave Clause 3 to deal solely with the provisions for triggering the emergency provisions in the Bill.
5.0 p.m.
In an effort to meet the hon. Members' wishes—I hope that this will be acknowledged—the Government endeavoured in Committee, though unsuccessfully, to carry an amendment with a purpose similar to the proposal we now put to the House. Our present amendment retains the qualifications already agreed with regard to consultation with any organisation likely to be affected by an energy conservation order. I hope the House will agree that this transplanting of the energy conservation provision from Clause 3 to Clause 1 will help to clarify the purpose and effect of the provision. I recommend, therefore, that our amendment be accepted.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: From a study of the Government amendment, it appears that in a non-emergency situation the Secretary of State—presumably the Secretary of State for Energy—would have certain powers in relation to regulating and prohibiting the use of substances mentioned in the subsection, or of electricity, and thereafter there is provision for consultation.
I take it that the Under-Secretary is aware that the Department of Energy has no authority or control—and, I hope, no influence either—over the Scottish electricity boards, which fall within the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State for Scotland. In connection with the prior consultations before an order is made on the South of Scotland Electricity Board or the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, may we have an assurance that the Secretary of State for Scotland will conduct those consultations within Scotland and that the advice forthcoming will be listened to before any action is taken?

Dr. Cunningham: Yes, I can give that assurance. Obviously, we have taken up this matter with the Secretary of State for Scotland, and I am confident that the point raised by the hon. Gentleman will be taken care of.
I come now to the Opposition Amendments (a), (b) and (c) to our Amendment No. 1. In view of the recommendation which I have given, I trust that the House will accept our Amendment No. 1 and not wish to proceed with the amendments to it.
As we understand it, Amendment (a) would require that the conservation powers should be exercised only when they were
to the overall economic advantage of the United Kingdom".
As I said earlier, there is no need for legislation to remind any Government to act in the nation's economic interests, and we see no purpose in having that written into the Bill.
It appears that Amendment (b) would impose a requirement that any order should include a statement of its likely effect and economic justification. Here again, I have already stated that we should do our best to make clear our assessments of the effect and our judgment on the economic benefits. Moreover, if reasonably precise facts and calculations can be made available, we shall be glad to disclose them. I suggest, therefore, that the House need not proceed with that amendment.
Amendment (c) calls again for the annual report to which the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East referred when moving New Clause 1. I have already dealt with that at sufficient length, I

think, and I urge the House to accept our Amendment No. 1 as it stands, rejecting the new clause and Amendments (a), (b) and (c).

Mr. John Cronin: At the outset, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) on his new position, and say how pleasant it is to hear him deploy his case with such urbanity and lucidity.
I wish to raise a very limited aspect of Clause 1(1), and, since it is so limited, my speech will be brief. The Bill is primarily concerned with conservation. Under Clause 1, the Secretary of State will have power to regulate the production of solid fuel, and, as I have, in company with my hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. MacFarquhar) and the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Butler), the distinction of representing the South Derbyshire and Leicestershire miners, I feel that I should draw to the attention of the House a matter that is exercising them at present. Although it does not fall strictly within the confines of conservation, it nevertheless forms an important part peripherally.
I refer to the question of the retirement age for miners. Without doubt, any measures that the Government take for conservation will be utterly fruitless in relation to solid fuel unless they have the good will of the miners. Therefore, any order that the Secretary of State may make regulating production should take into account the possibility, or probability, of an earlier retirement age for miners.
In Germany, after 25 years in the pits, miners retire at the age of 60. In France, if they have 30 years' service in the pits, they retire at the age of 50. In Belgium the retirement age is 55. In Holland also it is 55. In Spain, hardly a very liberal country, miners retire at 60. In the Soviet Union the retirement age is 50, and in the United States it is 55.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman in the deployment of his argument, but I find it difficult to understand how the retirement age of miners can be considered in connection with New Clause 1. It seems to me, with respect, that the subject matter of the clause does not allow of it.

Mr. Cronin: I bow to your ruling, of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but perhaps I may point out that Clause 1 (1) relates specifically to the regulating of production, and I should have thought that orders requiring that production be not made by miners over a certain age would be closely relevant to the clause. May I endeavour to dispose of the matter in a few more sentences? I hope that I shall not try your patience.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If it is just a few more words, the Chair will be indulgent, but not otherwise.

Dr. John A. Cunningham: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks, and I congratulate him on his ingenuity in introducing the subject in this debate. Perhaps I can help him in a small way by saying that although we do not think that this is a matter for the present Bill the Government are generally seized, if that be the right word, of the views of the National Union of Mineworkers and his constituents. Although it is, perhaps, novel to suggest for conservation purposes that, if miners retire at age 60, coal will be conserved, I remind my hon. Friend that the Plan for Coal actually envisages an increase in output from the mines.

Mr. Cronin: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention, though I am sorry that he did not say anything about the Government's plans. Perhaps I may briefly terminate what I have to say by pointing out that miners in Britain are treated in a uniquely bad way in terms of their retirement age, compared with miners in other countries. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"] I am glad that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides agree. I shall be grateful, therefore, if Ministers will draw my views, which obviously have the backing of the whole House, to the attention of the Secretary of State and see what steps can be taken to ensure that miners retire at a much earlier age than they do at present, or at least ensure that some progress is made in that direction.

Mr. Forman: I offer my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) on his excellent speech moving the new clause and to the hon. Member for

Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) on his new appointment as Under-Secretary of State.
I wish to reaffirm some of the points so ably elaborated by my hon. Friend and to give one or two illustrations showing why I regard it as important for the House to accept the new clause. As the Under-Secretary of State said, energy conservation is vital to our long-term overall energy strategy and our whole energy equation.
The only thing which disappointed me in the Minister's remarks was the fact that he did not seem to give sufficient weight in his review to the aspect of benign sources of energy in the future. Looking at the overall equation in years to come, a great deal more needs to be done on the research and development side for energy from benign sources. The differential between the money spent each year on R and D for energy from benign sources and that spent on nuclear energy is something of the order of the ratio of 1 to 10 and possibly even greater. We need a better balance in this R and D effort.
We could have quicker results by acting on the energy demand and conservation side rather than on the side of energy supply. This is particularly obvious when looking at the long lead times which affect nuclear power, and the Selby coalfield. Conservation obviously has a quick acting and useful part to play. It gives us a better chance of flexibility which we may need to cope with future political threats from OPEC countries or anywhere else.
I was very impressed by the figure which the Minister gave of the cost to our balance of payments of £12 million a day to import oil. If we needed another argument here, it is the financial argument. The balance of payments consideration is very important, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East said, it is a factor of which we should all take account, particularly in view of the disastrous deficits we have been running up in recent years.

Mr. Peter Viggers: The figure of £12 million a day may well be greatly increased shortly if the OPEC countries carry out their threat to increase oil prices by 15 to 20 per cent. This seems to have been ignored in the projections of this country's economy.

Mr. Forman: Yes, that is so. According to the best estimate I have been able to get, a 1 per cent, reduction of total energy consumption would bring in £100 million savings on the balance of payments.
Perhaps the most important and philosophical aspect of conservation is that it is consistent with our needs. Now that we are a relatively poor nation we must cut out waste in all forms and must not continue on the primrose path of 30 per cent. efficient power stations and vast new council estates with electric heating and insufficient insulation. These are the kind of decisions which were taken before the party was over, so to speak, and they are the sort of decisions we can no longer afford.
There are some points which we must bear in mind on the other side of the argument, too. We cannot afford to damage our international competitive position by overdoing the conservation argument. All we, on this side of the House, are asking for is a more rational and less wasteful use of the energy in circulation.
Equally the Government must not use conservation as a sort of fig-leaf to hide other sinister motives to extend their own form of doctrinal control over new sectors of industry.
This is a strong argument against the particular form of this Bill because it is, after all, a bit of a dog's breakfast. It would have helped the House considerably if we had had a clear conservation Bill.
We must see energy costs in a realistic light as a proportion of total costs and bear in mind the fact that price movements are often a far more effective way of ensuring conservation than any exhortations from Government departments.
An estimated 7·5 per cent. drop in energy consumption was recorded between 1973 and 1975. Five per cent. of this was due to recession, and 2·5 per cent. to higher prices. Therefore, conservation has a part to play, but it needs to be seen in perspective.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I intervene briefly to commend the need for further attention to energy saving, and particularly to co-ordination between various Government Departments. I am not sure, in

looking at the Bill as it is at present, that sufficient attention is being paid to co-ordination. There is a limit to what one Department of State can do in the effort to cut down the consumption of energy.
Take, for example, the job creation scheme for the insulation of roofs of houses. This was one of the most imaginative schemes which has been produced, and I commend the Government for it. Unfortunately, however, the scheme was marred very severely by the fact that very few funds are being made available, either by the Secretary of State for Scotland or by the Secretary of State for the Environment, to local authorities to enable them to take up the part of the scheme that was laid upon them to create new jobs, improve housing stock and save energy.
I hope that the Government will consider making more funds available. The Under-Secretary appears to be making some remarks in my direction but I am not sure what he is saying—

Dr. John Cunningham: If the hon. Gentleman is talking about the funds made available under the job creation project of the Manpower Services Commission, surely he must realise that recently we announced that £17 million was being made available for work of this kind. We are very keen to see local authorities pursue these schemes because between 60 per cent. and 70 per cent. of all local authority houses have no roof insulation and it will conserve a lot of energy if this is installed.

Mr. Wilson: I am glad to hear that that is so. When I put down Parliamentary Questions on this matter earlier this month that information had not filtered through. The burden was being placed on local authorities, which are supposed to be cutting expenditure, and they were unable to contribute to their part of the scheme in the way we had hoped—because, as I said before, this is a very worthwhile scheme.
The point remains, is there sufficient in this Bill to take care of the problem of co-ordination and to make sure that one Department of State does not trip up another when it produces a good idea?

Mr. Trevor Skeet: I would like to join with other hon. Members in


congratulating the Under-Secretary on his appointment, but while I congratulate him I cannot possibly accept his new amendment.
We have no objection to end-use controls in a genuine emergency. This is not the first time we have seen this Government amendment. It was debated in Committee, where it was rejected, and it is only due to the Government's obstinacy that it appears on the Order Paper today. The Minister of State was apparently not convinced by 56 columns of Hansard when we finally concluded that this amendment was not on, and the Government should drop the proposal.
It has been the policy of the Opposition to separate the permanent and emergency powers. In Clause 3 they are inexplicably mixed. The Minister seeks to transfer them to Clause 1, so that we have the same defect being preserved. Of course, it is a question of presentation. In the whole debate in Committee the Minister of State made no reference to the permanent powers and he dispensed with the whole matter in less than four minutes. He was hoping that that would escape the vigilance of the Opposition, but it is there for all to read.
Under the amendment, orders under Clause 1 regulating or prohibiting the use of any fuel may be made at any time—that is, not merely at a time of emergency but in normal conditions as well. The purpose for that, which was explained in a very convincing argument put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost), was to precipitate out the permanent from the emergency powers. I should have thought that that would commend itself to the Government. Members of Parliament would be able to make a judgment of their own on the basis of the annual report and thereby participate in the decision-making process. I always thought that the Secretary of State was in favour of open government. Now I have my reservations.
Once the legislative precedent is established for control in normal times of the use of any fuel there will be no limit to the use of this device in other industries which have no relationship to energy. In future statutes its application to metals, building materials, and so on, would be only a matter of time. Due to the mixture

of emergency powers and normal powers in Clause 1, substantial difficulties will be experienced under Schedule 2 and the provisions for obtaining information. Although there may be a case for gaining access to premises without a warrant during a period of national exigency, there can be no justification for that in normal times.
I have thought for a considerable time that the provision of permanent powers for the regulation of energy is probably to feed the Socialist lust for planning national resources. The Secretary of State told the House of Commons in 1973 that the 1973 Act would give him the powers to
fix their prices and their distribution systems; and under these powers every other fuel and its use".—[Official Report, 26th November 1973; Vol. 865, c. 141.]
That has never been denied. In fact, it was acknowledged by the Under-Secretary.

The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Dr. J. Dickson Mahon): Will the hon. Member continue the quotation for three or four more sentences?

Mr. Skeet: I do not think that I need do that. I must economise in time. The further comments do not detract from the points that I have already made.
Let us take the case a step further and consult the Secretary of State's political advisers at the Department—Frances Morrell and Francis Cripps. They say:
It has been seen that a planned energy policy would involve deciding which fuel should be used, and by whom, and how they should be used, just as much as deciding how the supply industry should develop".
Later they go on:
Planned development of sources of primary fuel supply would conflict with the traditional policy of free market decisions on energy use".
That is, after all, the philosophy of the Government, and it is not surprising that the Under-Secretary should not mention anything about permanent powers today.
However the fact was brought out by Sir Arthur Hawkins in the Financial Times on 23rd June 1976 when he outlined the absurdity of ministerial direction. He said:
We have been used as pawns in the power game in order to tie up the loose ends of the country's energy economy. The Board had been pressurised into taking expensive fuel that nobody else wanted. When coal was cheap they were required to burn dearer oil, and when


oil became cheaper take high cost coal.
It is not surprising that the National Council of Building Materials Producers has written to me on behalf of the National Federation of Clay Industries. In the letter dated 19th October it says:
We need an assurance that energy conservation powers will not be used to compel an industry to change its fuelling policy. Should any change be necessary it should be subject to a positive vote and should have a lead-in period of six months.
The letter goes on to deal with the possibility of compensation being paid. I hope that the Under-Secretary will deal with that point.
The Minister should say whether conservation is to be put before technology. Are there to be fewer nuclear power stations and more coal-fired plants, even though the former may make a better use of national resources than the latter, and the fast breeder reactor is the most efficient vehicle for using Britain's growing stocks of plutonium? Is coal to be used to conserve oil when it would be cheaper probably to develop the North Sea oil potential than Selby coal, and would have a much smaller environmental impact?
The CEGB's selection of fuels is anathema to the Government, who wish to take away the competitive forces inherent in the Board's position. In response to its customers the Board rightly insists that it should secure the right to elect how much coal and oil it burns, depending on the price range of fuels available. The powers sought by the Government would divest the Board of that right.
Diminished use of power station fuel oil—with consumption reduced at the Government's behest has caused the market to be saturated with the product. If the Board will not burn it, who will? The consequence is that refining patterns have become disturbed and the oil companies have been required to invest heavily to restore the refinery balance, that is, between refinery yield and product demand, which has swung in favour of more light products—gasolenes and naphtha—at the expense of heavy fuel oils. Is this the best use of our national resources? How much more direction

is likely to occur if the House accepts the amendment?
The best control for conservation purposes is by the price mechanism, not by direction. This was conceded by the Minister of State when he said that petrol consumption was likely to fall by 3 per cent. if the price increased by 10p per gallon. After all, the fiscal control of petroleum is tax, and the tax payable by the public is about 50 per cent. Perhaps the Minister of State will consider this point. There is an integrated European market in petroleum products. Has the clause been clandestinely designed to thwart British oil exports to Europe?

Dr. John A. Cunningham: It is already happening.

Mr. Skeet: If it is already happening, it is in conflict with Article 34 of the Treaty of Rome, which is part of the fair trading clause.

Dr. John A. Cunningham: What I said, and what the hon. Member knows that I meant, was that exports of oil are already taking place from this country.

Mr. Skeet: I am delighted to hear that. I thought that was common knowledge, but will these directions be used for the purpose I have described if and when they become law?
The Under-Secretary said that he was not prepared to accept Amendment (a) to provide that conservation should be used for the overall economic advantage of the United Kingdom. He said that that was perfectly obvious. But in the use of the powers that he is claiming, the onus is on him to show that he has acted intra vires. But he has not stated any of the parameters open to him. Why not issue a list of the criteria for the guidance of the public and private sectors of industry saying which powers will be used in which circumstances? Already we have indicated one of the criteria that could be applicable. So far the Secretary of State has indicated none. May I suggest one or two subsidiary points which could be included? I refer, first, to circumstances where it can be clearly demonstrated that intervention would lead to an energy saving which is susceptible of clear evaluation, and where it is intended that lower-grade energy use is required in preference to a higher-grade


energy source. On this basis the Secretary of State should never use the powers contained in this clause to curtail the feed stock of the petro-chemical industry due to the added-value elements.
5.30 p.m.
Secondly, there is the case where an indigenous energy source is preferred and is nationally supportable over a foreign fuel, providing that the foreign exchange savings are not unreasonably counterbalanced by increased costs of the energy source and the balance of payments of the United Kingdom at the time warrants such intervention. To conserve energy, but to waste financial sources in doing so, would be ludicrous.
Of the various factors involved, conservation should constitute the major part of the justification, and intervention should not be urged if the regulatory use of the fuel involved would lead to a disproportionate cost compared with the available supply, the infraction of negotiated contracts and for esoteric reasons.
A more careful definition of conservation would concentrate the Secretary of State's mind, exert a beneficial discipline upon him and his advisers and, coupled with effective parliamentary scrutiny, avoid any abuse of unfettered discretion.
There is obviously a constitutional point here. The Government are proposing that ministerial reasoning should replace the exercise of judicial interpretation and it is obviously intended that the text of Clause 1 should be construed by the Executive and not by the courts. This is a classic case of drawing the terms of the law to enhance the powers of the Executive at the expense of the judiciary.
This must be so, as there is not enshrined in the clause any vestige of appeal against the use, even the unreasonable use, of ministerial discretion. Is it the intention of the Minister to issue regulations under the clause elaborating the criteria upon which the Secretary of State will exercise his powers on a permanent basis outside a national emergency?
It will be recollected that while wide powers were contained in the Fuel and Electricity (Control) Act 1973, they were susceptible to annual review. This is not the case in this Bill, and Parliament's control over ministerial use under Clause 1 is regrettably less effective.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) talked about the possibility of additional staff being required in order to monitor the new clause. The right hon. Gentleman has left the Chamber, but he will be able to read my remarks in Hansard. Where there is a question of powers being taken by the Government and which may be vested in a Minister, there must be parliamentary scrutiny and the ony way in which this can be exercised is through this House. We suggest that there should be an annual review and an annual report which could be made available for everyone in the Vote Office and which could be debated.
The best way of regulating use in the interests of conservation is to permit market forces to operate. Previous planning decisions of the Government in a number of fields provide sorrowful monuments to the mistaken judgment of Ministers. I was reading recently the Sixth Report of the Public Accounts Committee, in which the Secretary of State is censored because of substantial sums—about £10 million in all—being granted to three worker co-operatives. The Committee recognised this to be an error.
There is no doubt about the paucity of wisdom of civil servants compared with that exercised by staff daily engaged in business facing the spectrum of problems in a particular industry.
Current trends and abuses may be corrected by fiscal methods by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at any time. Taxation has the advantage that it applies indiscriminately to users. The difficulty with regulations is that they can be manipulated by Ministers for doctrinal reasons—for example, to support the BNOC, to upset the profitability of existing investments, to disturb refinery balance or to lead to uncompensatable breaches of existing contracts. They may also, by distorting the market produce a statistical picture that is both inaccurate and misleading.
After years of experience of controls of the type that the Government are now proposing to introduce, Mr. Garvin, the Chairman of Exxon, was reported in the Financial Times of 19th October as saying that higher prices and possibly additional taxes, too, might have to be imposed on United States consumers in


order to make the country more energy conservation-minded. The report continued:
He added that Government controls on natural gas and petroleum products are clearly counter-productive in achieving energy conservation.
These are the words of the chairman of the biggest oil company in the world. I should have thought that they would be borne in mind, so that we avoid making the same mistakes in this country. As I said in Committee, inducement, guidance and education provide a saner approach in the fuel market and more efficacious than ministerial direction, especially when coupled with the operation of the market and by application of taxes at any time.
The Minister said nothing about permanent powers of use control.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: That is the next debate.

Mr. Skeet: If that is the Minister of State's knowledge of this Bill, I am surprised. Let him look at the wording of the amendment. It is quite clear, and refers to permanent end-use control. Our next debate will be on permanent powers of pricing petroleum products.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: If that is so, why is the hon. Gentleman making a speech that covers both subjects? Why not separate them neatly?

Mr. Skeet: It is for the discretion of Mr. Speaker to divide the amendments. I am speaking to elicit from the Government their intentions. We have no objection to price controls in a national emergency, but permanent end-use controls can be used to dictate what fuels should be used by, for instance, the CEGB.
The Minister of State appears not to have read his own Bill. The amendment says that the right to prohibit or regulate may be used at all times. That means permanent controls. The public may be astute enough to realise what the Minister apparently fails to understand and will see the dangers that I have been canvassing.
The interaction of end-use orders, taxes on fuels, permanent price controls and planning agreements for particular industries will be detrimental to the per-

formance of the private sector and of no ultimate benefit to the Government.
The Government arrogantly expect that they can step into the market place and formulate the right decisions, but many mistakes have been made by Ministers in this House. I have referred to the Secretary of State's being censured by Select Committee and other well known cases come to mind.
The splitting of steel strip mills between Wales and Scotland is now regarded as a mistake, and the provision of aluminium smelters has led to problems which the Electricity (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill 1976 has been called upon to deal with. It has also been recognised that a great mistake was made in the provision of State facilities for petroleum production platforms.
The provision of permanent end-use controls is obviously designed to interfere with the flow of natural gas and petroleum products to our Common Market partners. This is contrary to the fair trading provisions of the Rome Treaty. This will become particularly acute since the Commission has had to revise its objectives for reducing imported oil to 50 per cent., and targets are unlikely to be realised.
Further, if the energy-rich nations such as the United Kingdom seek to deprive the energy-deprived nations or our partners in the Common Market of their oil requirements, the chances of securing a minimum safeguard price, which is what the Government are after, will be frustrated by both the French and the Italians.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Will the hon. Gentleman care to say what benefit this sort of bottom or plateau price will have when the OPEC countries are girding their loins for a fairly substantial increase in world prices?

Mr. Skeet: I am delighted to have that question, but I do not propose to deal with it today.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: Well done.

Mr. Skeet: The Minister of State says "Well done", but it was his Government who were after a floor price of seven dollars a barrel. I am against the floor price, whereas the Government are anxious to have it. It seems that there is a division in the Government. Apparently the Minister of State is against the floor


price and the Prime Minister is in favour of it. It is hard to find out exactly what they stand for in these matters. I invite my hon. Friends to vote against the amendment and for the new clause.

Mr. Rost: The Under-Secretary of State has asked us to withdraw the new clause. I have always had a high respect for the hon. Gentleman because I have worked with him on the Select Committee on Science and Technology on energy matters, but that respect will not last much longer if he is to make such statements with a pained face. If ever there was one, he is a poacher turned gamekeeper. It is not good enough for him to have spent his career in Parliament

attacking Governments for not being open enough on energy matters and now to propose that a reasonable clause that asks for an annual report to be put before Parliament should not be accepted.

In our view, this legislation without the new clause could not possibly give conservation the proper status that I thought the Government themselves were intending it to include. Therefore, I urge my hon. Friends to press the new clause to a Division.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 133, Noes 154.

Division No. 338.]
AYES
15.43 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Newton, Tony


Atkins, Fit Hon H. (Spelttiorne)
Hampson, Dr Keith
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Awdry, Daniel
Hannam, John
Pattie, Geoffrey


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Percival, Ian


Baker, Kenneth
Hastings, Stephen
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Benyon, W.
Havers, Sir Michael
Prior, Rt Hon James


Biffen, John
Henderson, Douglas
Raison, Timothy


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Holland, Philip
Rathbone, Tim


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Hordern, Peter
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Bralne, Sir Bernard
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Ridsdale, Julian


Brittan, Leon
Hurd, Douglas
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
James, David
Salnsbury, Tim


Buck, Antony
Kershaw, Anthony
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Budgen, Nick
Kimball, Marcus
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Carlisle, Mark
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Churchill, W. S.
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Speed, Keith


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Kirk, Sir Peter
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Clegg, Walter
Knight, Mrs Jill
Sproat, lain


Cockcroft, John
Le Marchant, Spencer
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Cope, John
Lloyd, Ian
Stokes, John


Cordle, John H.
Loveridge, John
Stradling Thomas, J.


Corrie, John
Luce, Richard
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Costain, A. P.
MacCormlck, Iain
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Crouch, David
McCrindle, Robert
Temple-Morris, Peter


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Macfarlane, Neil
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
MacGregor, John
Thompson, George


Emery, Peter
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Townsend, Cyril D.


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Vaughan, Dr Gerald


Eyre, Reginald
Mather, Carol
Viggers, Peter


Falrbairn, Nicholas
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Wakeham, John


Fell, Anthony
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Walters, Dennis


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Mills, Peter
Warren, Kenneth


Fookes, Miss Janet
Miscampbell, Norman
Watt, Hamish


Forman, Nigel
Moats, Roger
Weatherill, Bernard


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C 'f' d)
Molyneaux, James
Wilson. Gordon (Dundee E)


Gorst, John
Monro, Hector
Younger, Hon George


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Montgomery, Fergus



Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gray, Hamlsh
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Mr. Cecil Parkinson and


Grist, Ian
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Mr. Anthony Berry.


Hall, Sir John
Neubert, Michael





NOES


Anderson, Donald
Bidwell, Sydney
Campbell, Ian


Archer, Peter
Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Carmichael, Nell


Armstrong, Ernest
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Cartwright, John


Atkinson, Norman
Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Buchan, Norman
Clemitson, Ivor


Bates, Alf
Buchanan, Richard
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)


Bean, R. E.
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Cohen. Stanley




Coleman, Donald
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Richardson, Miss Jo


Corbett, Robin
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
John, Brynmor
Rodgers George (Chorley)


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Kelley, Richard
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Cryer, Bob
Kerr, Russell
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Klimarnock)


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Ryman, John


Davidson, Arthur
Kinnock, Neil
Sandelson, Neville


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lipton, Marcus
Silverman, Julius


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Loyden, Eddie
Skinner, Dennis


Deakins, Eric
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Small, William


Doig, Peter
McCarlney, Hugh
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Dormand, J. D.
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Spearing, Nigel


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
McElhone, Frank
Stallard, A. W.


Dunnett, Jack
MacKenzie, Gregor
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Edge, Geoff
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Madden, Max
Stoddart, David


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Strang, Gavin


English, Michael
Maynard, Miss Joan
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Meacher, Michael
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Mendelson, John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Faulds, Andrew
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Tomlinson, John


Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
Molloy, William
Tuck, Raphael


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Morris, Allred (Wythenshawe)
Urwin, T. W.


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N 'w' d)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Freeson, Reginald
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L 'dyw' d)


Freud, Clement
Newens, Stanley
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Noble, Mike
Watkinson, John


Gilbert, Dr John
Oakes, Gordon
Weitzman, David


Gourlay, Harry
Orbach, Maurice
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Grant, John (Islington C)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
White, James (Pollock)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Ovenden, John
Whitlock, William


Harper, Joseph
Owen, R.I Hon Dr David
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Palmer, Arthur
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Hooley, Frank
Pardoe, John
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Horam, John
Park, George
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Parry, Robert
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Penhaligon, David



Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Perry, Ernest
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Hunter, Adam
Prescott, John
Mr. James Tinn and


Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Mr. Ted Graham.


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Radice, Giles

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 1

GENERAL CONTROL BY ORDER

Amendment made: No. 1, in page 1, line 17, at end insert:

'(1A) Orders under subsection (1) above regulating or prohibiting the use of any of the substances mentioned in the subsection, or of electricity, may be made at any time but only where it appears to the Secretary of State to be desirable for the purpose of conserving energy.

Subject to this, orders under the subsection may be made only when an Order in Council under section 3 of this Act is in force.

(1B) When no Order in Council under section 3 is in force the Secretary of State shall before making an order under subsection (1) consult with organisations in the United Kingdom appearing to him to represent those who will be affected by the order, including both consumers and suppliers of energy, and such other organisations as he thinks appropriate.'.—[Dr. J. A. Cunningham.]

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 20, at end insert:

'This power is exercisable at any time in the case of petroleum products, but otherwise is exercisable only when an Order in Council under section 3 is in force'.
I think that I can be brief about this matter, although I do not deny that it is very important. We had a lengthy discussion in Committee about it. That was preceded by discussion in the other place on a similar matter. There is obviously a gulf of difference between the Government and the Opposition about the matter. I am sorry about that, because I do not believe that that difference ought to exist. I believe that it is based on a misunderstanding about intentions.
It is not our intention immediately to introduce a permanent system of price controls on petroleum products or oil fuel products. That is the contention that has been made by Opposition Members from time to time. I acquit the hon. Member for Carshalton (Mr. Forman) of that. In Committee he said:
The Minister said that the Government were seeking only permanent reserve powers to


control prices and not permanent price controls. He attached much importance to that distinction."—[Official Report, Standing Committee J, 29th June 1976; c. 133.]
I certainly do. That is the distinction. We want reserve powers on these matters. It is not so that we shall have powers on everything, but we want to have the power for one specific reason or product. The example that I gave is the continuation on paraffin. If the amendment were lost, I should have to introduce a manuscript amendment at once to save the paraffin position. I am sure that I would get the acknowledgement of at least one Opposition Member. Although there is a division among Opposition Members. I know that the hon. Member for Carshalton, the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) and the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Macfarlane) would support me in maintaining this specific control on paraffin prices, because it affects the old and the needy. As far as I know, no change was introduced by the Opposition in these matters.

Mr. John Biffen: The Minister of State says that paraffin consumption is largely in respect of the old and needy. Will he take some opportunity to place before the House an analysis that demonstrates that that is so?

Dr. Mabon: I cannot do that now, in the present circumstances, but I would welcome a chance to debate this matter. When we look at new orders as they come along, perhaps the Opposition will take the opportunity of opening up the debate on the matter. I shall certainly produce as much material as possible to justify that statement.
At present, if this amendment were lost, I should immediately ask your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to move a manuscript amendment to save the control of the price of paraffin. In doing so I know that I should have the support of not only all of my hon. Friends but also some Opposition Members. I use that example not to embarrass the Opposition but simply to say that it is an example of having a permanent reserve power that is able to be exercised in particular circumstances that are justified to my hon. Friends and Opposition Members.

Mr. Macfarlane: On that point, will the Minister undertake to tell us something that he neglected to clarify in Committee, in the hot days of June and July? Will he give a definition of an emergency and an emergency sub-crisis, which is germane to this point?

Dr. Mabon: I do not want to go into the semantics of what was a marvellous Committee stage, which I enjoyed tremendously. I want to rehearse the differences between us on the matter and get to the vote once and for all. I should certainly have to move a manuscript amendment if this amendment were lost.
One of the complaints that I have heard is that somehow or other the amendment is against consumers. It is said that somehow consumers do not want this control. I regard that as an Alice-in-Wonderland argument.
6.0 p.m.
I was asked whether I had heard from certain individuals, or from anyone, in favour of this proposition. I can tell the House that we have heard from the Brick Development Association about its position. It wants us to look into the question of the Government doing something about the control of prices as it affects the association. We have heard from the National Federation of Clay Industries using fuel oil, gas oil and liquid petroleum gas. The major airlines have made representations about cheaper fuel. The British Independent Steel Producers' Association has asked us to look into this matter. The horticulture and fishing industries have asked us to do so, and so have a number of ship repair companies. One specific one that I know of complained about bunker prices and asked us to look into that. That company claimed it was losing business because foreign ship owners were not willing to have their ships repaired in United Kingdom ports because the price of bunker fuel is higher than in most other European ports. I am not saying that all these complaints are justified, but if the Government were to take any one of those, either at the present time or in future when circumstances could have changed, we would have no power to do anything.
The Price Code cannot be used as an argument because it is a much blunter system than what is proposed here.

Mr. Rost: I have tried to follow the Minister closely. He is not asserting the arguments that he has given previously, namely, that these price controls are required in the interests of energy conservation. He has not directed his remarks to that argument. I wonder whether he could do so?

Dr. Mabon: I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) did quite well in the last debate. It was rather lengthy, but it was still worth while. I do not propose to rehearse what we have said before. I should explain to students of the Bill, who might do research on it in future, that my remarks tonight should be read with what I have said before.
What I would like to stress is the fact that we simply want reserve powers. I have established that we have at least one case which proves the need to have a precise power for a precise product. I agree that there are 3,000 of them, and I agree also that the Price Code system is not the mechanism to enable us to assert this.
The fourth reason is that the consumers want this and it is perfectly plain that they do. Fifthly, other countries have this power and use it. I am not denying that there could be abuses, but the fact is that the majority of those countries want to keep that system and have some right of reserve power for permanent control.
The argument that hon. Gentlemen opposite have used in Committee—no doubt the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty will use it in his peroration—is that the Secretary of State for Energy is a wild man who rejoices in the abuse of powers given to him by Parliament and will willingly wreck the economy at the drop of a hat. I am simply putting in a nicer way the abusive language that hon. Gentlemen employed in this regard. We deny that absolutely.
My right hon. Friend has been quoted many times, and was quoted again tonight. He has been misrepresented. He said, on 26th November 1973:
It will give us the power"—
—the Tory Party's Bill, which would still be on the statute book if we were not putting this Bill on the statute book—

to control all the oil companies, all the multi-nationals, to fix their prices and their distribution systems; and under these powers every other fuel and its use, including the chemical industry, will be brought within the control of the Government of the day.
That is the Tory Party. Later, he said, in the third sentence, which the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) had, but would not quote:
The Bill will give the Government enormous powers—far greater than any powers we have ever suggested should be taken in the area of fuel and power.—[Official Report, 26th November 1973, Vol. 865, c. 141.]
Who is the extremist? I suggest that the hon. Member for Bedford is the extremist. He wants to retain these powers, which we have not abused. The only power that we have exercised is the paraffin power. My right hon. Friend can hardly be accused of abusing powers either in theory or in practice.

Mr. Skeet: The 1973 Act was subject to annual review and therefore had to come before this House. Permanent price control powers are not to be reviewed annually. They would be permanent.

Dr. Mabon: But they will be subject to debate in Parliament, as we know. HON. MEMBERS: "How?"] Procedurally and also in general debates. There has never been, in my experience of the steam hammer powers, an occasion when either Government—Conservative or Labour—has misused them. I cannot accept the argument that by diminishing the Government's reserve powers as proposed here, by limiting them to petroleum products, we open the way to abuses. With due respect to hon. Gentlemen opposite, I have considered this carefully once again and have found five very sound arguments why Amendment No. 2 should be made.

Mr. Hamish Gray: I was interested in what the Minister had to say and in his quotation. It is, perhaps, fitting that he has used that quotation for a change and not I. I would not have used it tonight in any event.
There is one small point I would make and that is if he is so anxious about paraffin why then does he not remove the words "petroleum products" in the amendment and insert the word "paraffin"? He would then probably have


the support of quite a number of hon. Members on this side of the House. There may be some of my hon. Friends who would find it difficult to agree, but there are others, I am sure, who willingly would.
If the Minister insists on leaving in the words "petroleum products", then obviously we take exception to the amendment. One of the most disturbing features of the Bill, from the time when it was introduced in the other place, is the fact that it would give power to the Government to make orders regulating the price of petroleum products, exercisable at any time, including non-emergencies. That would put the oil industry in a state of being under permanent price control over and above the Price Code, by which it is already affected. The aims of the permanent price control, in a sense, seem awkwardly placed in the Bill. After all, the aims of the Bill are, surely, to provide emergency powers, to implement international agreements, and to promote conservation. It seems to us that that and price control do not go well together. These powers were removed by the Lords and the Government have twice attempted to replace them—once at the Report stage in the Lords and once in Committee in the Commons. One of our worries has been to obtain from the Minister—we have never got it—a positive definition of when these powers would be invoked.
I agree with the Minister that we had a successful Committee stage, particularly successful from our point of view. To give the Government credit, they met us on a number of matters. Indeed, the Bill as it is now is a vastly improved piece of legislation from that originally introduced in the Lords. That was due to the hard work of my noble Friends in another place, and to my right hon. and hon. Friends on this side of this House. Nevertheless, I would give credit where it is due, and, limited though it may be, we have to give it to the Government.
During Committee we tried several times to get a definition of what a sub-crisis is. Indeed, the former Under-Secretary said on 15th June:
It is envisaged that these powers would be used only if the Secretary of State needed to do so because of a state of shortage of fuel, oil and oil products. When hon. Members opposite complain about the conservation

aspect here, I should point out to them that there is a difference between the economics of prudence and the economics of famine. It would be in circumstances of the economics of famine that this sort of thing would be brought in and there would be price control in this way."—[Official Report, 15th June 1976; Vol. 913, c. 404–5.]
That is one definition, but it is difficult to accept this explanation because the Minister of State later gave us a description of the circumstances in which price control might be applied, and in the following terms, that
a third degree of possibility, namely, a crisis which is not legally an international crisis or legally a domestic crisis in terms of the concept of the Bill, but something which is slightly less, but which is serious to the consumer."—[Official Report, Standing Committee J, 29th June 1976; c. 118.]
People who will be affected by the Bill will find those definitions difficult to follow. The Minister at this late stage in the proceeedings on the Bill should be prepared to give us a more acceptable definition.

Mr. Macfarlane: Is my hon. Friend aware that in an article in the Financial Times this week the correspondent, Ray Dafter, said that the Minister
has indicated that powers might be needed for a 'sub-crisis' emergency"—
that phrase we have heard so much in 1976—
such as the local disruption of the normal market. One possible situation might be the wide variance of petrol prices between one geographical area and another"?
We remember the price competition that has gone on throughout this season.

Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend has raised a good point which highlights the necessity for a specific definition.
There seems to be on the part of Government, intentionally or unintentionally, a decided discrimination against the oil industry, which is unique in being the subject of permanent price control. That is virtually what is happening. There is a marked difference between restraint and price control, and the oil industry has been accustomed to cooperating with successive Governments for a considerable time.
The oil industry cannot be compared with the nationalised industries, which are not subject to the same economic disciplines as are the oil companies.


Many nationalised industries are monopolies and they do not have to compete to survive. Oil companies have to compete to survive, and this measure will seriously impair their future prospects.
Let us look back at the co-operation that the oil industry has achieved. In 1970 the industry was requested to give information two weeks in advance to the Department of Trade and Industry about proposed increases. It complied. That co-operation continued through 1971. An agreement with the CBI was signed in July 1971 covering the period until July 1972. Subsequently, the agreement was extended to 31st October 1972. All that was done by co-operation between the oil industry and the Government. The objects of the agreement between the CBI, the industry and the Government were principally to avoid increases, and, if increases were unavoidable, to limit them to 5 per cent. I give those instances to show how co-operative the industry has been over the years.
There is a great deal I should like to say, but we are pressed for time tonight and much of what I want to say has been touched on in Committee. I doubt whether at this late stage I shall get the Minister to change his mind, but there are several questions which should be asked. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some guidance on these questions. If it is not possible for him to get all the answers conveyed to him quickly enough during the debate, he might be able to tell us something during the Third Reading debate.
6.15 p.m.
Are the Government prepared to give an assurance that they will not exercise simultaneously their general powers

under current prices legislation and the specific powers under the Bill? Do the Government envisage the Price Code being replaced by the price control powers in the Bill for petroleum products?

If, as I hope, the answers to those questions are "Yes" and "No" respectively, will the Government reaffirm the Under-Secretary of State's pledge given on Second Reading that these powers will be used only if the Secretary of State needs to use them because of a shortage of fuel, oil and oil products?

How do the Government envisage administering the price controls in the Bill? What plans have the Government to avoid price distortion by the exercise of their powers? Are they prepared to give an undertaking not to use these powers to discriminate between different companies?

I realise that these are far-reaching questions, and for that reason I do not expect the Minister to be able to answer them all immediately. I hope, however, that he will be able to reassure the industry by answers he will give me either now or during the Third Reading debate. He will use his parliamentary majority to get his amendment through—of that there is little doubt—but that will not remove the doubts and fears of the industry. It is important that the Minister should tell me that he is prepared between now and Third Reading seriously to think about this matter. He will have an hour or two to spare, and I hope that he will be able to give us reassuring answers.

Question put, That the amendment he made:—

The House divided: Ayes 154, Noes 129.

Division No. 339.1
AYES
[6.17 p.m.


Anderson, Donald
Carmichael, Neil
Deakins, Eric


Archer, Peter
Cartwright, John
Doig, Peter


Armstrong, Ernest
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Dormand, J. D.


Atkinson, Norman
Clemitson, Ivor
Douglas-Mann, Bruce


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Dunnett, Jack


Barrett, Fit Hon Joel (Heywood)
Cohen, Stanley
Edge, Geoff


Bates, Alf
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)


Bean, R. E.
Corbett, Robin
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)


Bidwell, Sydney
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
English, Michael


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Cryer, Bob
Faulds, Andrew


Buchan, Norman
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.


Buchanan, Richard
Davidson, Arthur
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)


Campbell, Ian
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)




Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
MacKenzie, Gregor
Small, William


Freeson, Reginald
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Madden, Max
Spearing, Nigel


Gilbert, Dr John
Maynard, Miss Joan
Stallard, A. W.


Gourlay, Harry
Meacher, Michael
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Graham, Tad
Mendeison, John
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Grant, John (Islington C)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Stoddart, David


Harper, Joseph
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Strang, Gavin


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Summersklll, Hon Dr Shirley


Henderson, Douglas
Molloy, William
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Hooley, Frank
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Horam, John
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Thompson, George


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Tinn, James


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Newens, Stanley
Tomlinson, John


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Noble, Mike
Tuck, Raphael


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Oakes, Gordon
Urwin, T. W.


Hunter, Adam
Orbach, Maurice
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Ovenden, John
Waiden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Owen, R.I Hon Dr David
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Jeger, Mrs Lena
Palmer, Arthur
Watkinson, John


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Park, George
Watt, Hamish


John, Brynmor
Parry, Robert
Weitzman, David


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Prescott, John
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Kelley, Richard
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
White, James (Pollock)


Kerr, Russell
Radice, Giles
Whitlock, William


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Kinnock, Neil
Richardson, Miss Jo
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Williams. Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Lipton, Marcus
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Loyden, Eddie
Rooker, J. W.
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Ryman, John



McCartney, Hugh
Sandelson. Neville
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


MacCormick, Iain
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Mr. Tames Hamilton and


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Silverman, Julius
Mr. Donald Coleman.


McElhone, Frank
Skinner, Dennis





NOES


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Hannam, John
Parkinson, Cecil


Awdry, Daniel
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Pattie, Geoffrey


Baker, Kenneth
Hastings, Stephen
Penhaligon, David


Berry, Hon Anthony
Havers, Sir Michael
Percival, Ian


Biffen, John
Holland, Philip
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Biggs-Davison, John
Hordern, Peter
Prior, Rt Hon James


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Raison, Timothy


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Hurd, Douglas
Rathbone, Tim


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Braine, Sir Bernard
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Brittan, Leon
James, David
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Kershaw, Anthony
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Kimball, Marcus
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Buck, Antony
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Royle, Sir Anthony


Budgen, Nick
Kirk, Sir Peter
Sainsbury, Tim


Carlisle, Mark
Knight, Mrs Jill
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Churchill, W. S.
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Lloyd, Ian
Skeet, T. H. H.


Clegg, Walter
Loveridge, John
Speed, Keith


Cockcroft, John
Luce, Richard
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
McCrindle, Robert
Sproat, lain


Cope, John
Macfarlane, Neil
Stanbrook, Ivor


Corrie, John
MacGregor, John
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Costain, A. P.
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Crouch, David
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Dykes, Hugh
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Mather, Carol
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Temple-Morris, Peter


Emery, Peter
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Eyre, Reginald
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Townsend, Cyril D.


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Mills, Peter
Vaughan, Dr Gerald


Fell, Anthony
Miscampbell, Norman
Viggers, Peter


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Moate, Roger
Wainwright, Richard (Coine V)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Molyneaux, Jame[...]
Wakeham, John


Fookes, Miss Janet
Monro, Hector
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Forman, Nigel
Montgomery, Fergus
Walters, Dennis


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Warren, Kenneth


Freud, Clement
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Weatherill, Bernard


Gorst, John
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Younger, Hon George


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Neubert, Michael



Gray, Hamish
Newton, Tony
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grist, Ian
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Hall, Sir John
Pardoe, John
Mr. W. Benyon.


Hampson, Dr Keith

Question accordingly agreed to.

Dr. John A. Cunningham: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 1 leave out lines 21 to 23.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Government Amendments Nos. 5 and 9 and also the following amendments:

No. 8, in Clause 3, page 3, line 12, leave out subject to subsection (3) below,';

No. 10, in page 3, line 17, leave out subsection (3).

Dr. Cunningham: Amendment No. 4 is consequential upon changes which have been made. The energy conservation provisions, now removed from Clause 3, and the permanent power to control prices now incorporate the qualifications as to the making of orders formerly contained in Clause 3, (2) and (3), to which this subsection refers. The amendment deletes this subsection (3) altogether. I hope that Opposition Members will agree that it serves the purpose that they were trying to achieve.
Amendments Nos. 5 and 9 are consequential on the new provisions incorporating the qualifications as to the making of orders at present contained in Clause 3, (2) and (3). As Clause 3(2) will no longer contain a restriction on the making of directions when an Order in Council is not in force it is necessary to make a direct reference to this restriction in Clause 2.
Amendment No. 9 is consequential on Amendments Nos. 1 and 5. It completes the alterations necessary to make Clause 3 solely concerned with the triggering of the provisions to deal with an energy emergency.
6.30 p.m.
Hon. Members will have noted that the two Opposition amendments have been tabled on the same provision. We prefer Amendment No. 9 because of its drafting. It is part of a series of amendments as a result of which subsection (2) of Clause 3 will now be directly linked with Clauses 1 and 2, which it qualifies. I hope that hon. Members will support the Government amendment.

Mr. Gray: This is an example of how the Government have taken notice of some of the suggestions made to them. It would certainly not be for an Opposition hon. Member to argue with a Minis-

ter about the quality of drafting. I am sure that the Government's drafting will stand up to the test of time, and since their amendment goes a long way towards what we seek we shall not oppose it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2

RESERVE POWER TO CONTROL BY GOVERNMENT DIRECTIONS

Amendment made: No. 5, in page 2, line 1, leave out
'Subject to section 3 below,'
and insert:
'When an Order in Council under section 3 of this Act is in force'.—[Dr. John A. Cunningham.]

Clause 3

IMPLEMENTATION OF RESERVE POWERS

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move Amendment No. 6 in page 3, line 5, leave out
'in regard to fuel and energy making'
and insert:
'affecting fuel or electricity supplies which makes'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Amendment No. 7, in page 3, line 6, after 'energy', insert supplies'.

Dr. Mahon: We have made a number of amendments to this part of the Bill and I am pleased that Amendment No. 7 has prompted the Government to look at the text. We prefer Amendment No. 6 and hope that the Opposition prefer it also.
The Government amendment refers to "fuel or electricity supplies", which will enable us to cater for an emergency which affects electricity supplies alone. Amendment No. 6 would give us the flexibility which Amendment No. 7 would not. With modesty, I ask the Opposition not to move their amendment but to adopt Amendment No. 6.

Mr. Gray: We have no further comment to make on the amendment and are prepared to accept the Government amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 9, in page 3, leave out lines 12 to 26.—[Dr. J. Dickson Mabon.]

Clause 5

TEMPORARY RELIEF FROM RESTRICTIVE PRACTICES LAW

Dr. John A. Cunningham: I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in page 4, line 39, leave out from beginning to 'are' in line 1 on page 5 and insert:

'(1) The Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 does not apply to an agreement satisfying the following conditions, namely—

(a) it is in writing and made between two or more persons carrying on business in the production or supply of petroleum and—

(i) is made by them with the Secretary of State and each other, and
(ii) contains a power for the Secretary of State to terminate it on the ground that its continuance is no longer expedient in the national interest;
(b) no such restrictions are accepted under it as would (apart from this subsection) make it subject to registration under the 1976 Act, other than restrictions—

(i) in respect of the matters mentioned in section 6(1)(a) to (c) of the Act (regulations of prices and terms and conditions of sale), and
(ii) relating only to petroleum;
(c) it is so expressed that restrictions under it in respect of those matters are operative when, and only when, there is for the time being in force an Order in Council under section 3 of this Act.

(1A) Without prejudice to the foregoing, an agreement made at a time when there is in force such an Order in Council and satisfying the conditions set out below, is exempt from registration under the 1976 Act (subject to this section) while the Order is in force.

(2) The conditions for exemption under subsection (1A) above'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Government Amendments Nos. 12, 13 and 14.

Dr. Cunningham: As my hon. Friend the then Minister said in Committee, we have examined the possibility of widening the exemptions under Clause 5 during an emergency to include agreements regulating price and terms and conditions of sale falling under Section 6(1)(a) to (c) of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976. This amendment meets the Opposition's point. However, because it is in our view essential that any price regime introduced in a crisis is acceptable to the

Government of the day, we have made it a condition of exemption that any price agreements or agreements about terms and conditions of sale must be made with the Secretary of State. In addition the Secretary of State, by virtue of paragraph (a) (ii) of the amendment, would be able to terminate any exempted price agreement if he considered this necessary in the national interest during an emergency.
I hope that the House will accept this amendment, which reflects the Government's intention that arrangements for oil allocation in a crisis should be practicable and effective, and our recognition that the oil industry has a vital role to play in such a task. The exemptions provided in Clause 5 together with the qualifications as to their activation and continuation provide in our view a carefully balanced response to a real problem.

Mr. Gray: Generous, as always, in our praise when the Government are behaving themselves, we welcome the amendment. The discussions which the Government had with the Opposition and the industry at different times on this subject probably led to this reasonable and satisfactory solution.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 12, in page 5, line 25, leave out 'this section' and insert subsection (1A) above'.

No. 13, in page 5, line 28, leave out 'this section' and insert 'subsection (1A)'.

No. 14, in page 5, line 34, leave out 'this section' and insert 'subsection (1A)'.—[Dr. J. Dickson Mabon.]

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move Amendment No. 15, in page 6, line 3, at end insert
'and section 35 of that Act (failure to register within time required) shall apply accordingly.'.
This is simply a tidying-up amendment to ensure that in cases where, under the terms of Clause 5(5) of the Bill, an agreement ceases to be exempt but continues in force and subject to the provisions of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976, the enforcement provisions of Section 35 of that Act in respect of failure to register in time are applicable.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10

SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO CONSENTS

Mr. Skeet: I beg to move Amendment No. 16, in page 10, line 28, leave out `,in particular,'.
I can move the amendment economically, and I hope that the Government will be accommodating. The amendment seeks to leave out the words "in particular". They are important because under Section 9 of the Continental Shelf Act 1964 no conditions are laid down on consents, either mandatory or discretionary. The Secretary of State has prescribed conditions which appear to be open-ended. If the words "in particular" were omitted, the conditions would be limited to:
the description or origin of the gas, or the quantities to be supplied, used or disposed of, or the manner of supply or use.
Retaining the words "in particular" in the clause would mean that there could be many other conditions. None of them has been itemised.
Can the Minister of State give me some idea of why he wants these words in the clause and what the additional conditions are likely to be if the words are retained? Will he give an assurance that any conditions will be spelt out to an investor well before he enters into the potential investment? Will the Minister also give an assurance that the conditions will not concern the size of the project, the technology to be used or the location and manning of the plant? Those matters should be left to the judgment of the companies concerned. This is important, because companies have to risk their investment and if they do not understand the conditions in advance they might find that what they hope to be a profitable exercise turns out to be totally non-viable. I hope that the Minister can satisfy me about that. In Committee an enormous number of commitments were made on the gas clauses, and this is one of the problems with which it would be difficult to live.

Dr. Mabon: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman, who was useful in Committee. His attitude towards the Government changed when he realised that we were being constructive and sensible and

that we were willing to talk to industry. I acknowledge that. But there is still a lingering suspicion in the hon. Gentleman's mind that we shall misuse these powers if they are not made more precise. I must protest in the nicest possible way that we could not forecast every possibility. I shall not make the point that it was a Conservative Government who passed the basic Act. It is probable that we would have done the same. But they could have not foreseen, and neither can we now, every possible condition in every context at any given moment and have it absolutely "spot on".
We have to have a right of an option to cover what we cannot foresee. We have had occasions in flaring, for example, where we have exercised powers under the petroleum production licences to prohibit flaring except with consent. There have been five cases so far, all containing conditions about the amount of gas to be flared. None of them has given rise to misgivings because they were discussed with those concerned before we imposed the conditions.
I do not believe that it is possible for us to administer this fairly without being in close relationships with those immediately concerned, not only looking after their interests but looking after the general interest.
I should be attracted by the amendment if I knew that the Department and the industry could anticipate every eventuality. But they cannot.
My argument for rejecting the amendment is two sides of the same coin. The first side is that the Government would be hampered if they were denied the right to impose relevant conditions in addition to conditions of the sort referred to expressly in the subsection. The other side is that the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) are based on the false premise that the Government would use Clause 10(5) to impose irrelevant or mischievous conditions. I do not accept that. No Government would behave mischievously in this manner, but they must take into account relevant conditions. I must ask the hon. Gentleman not to press his amendment.

Mr. Skeet: That has clarified the position. The Minister seeks to confine


Clause 10(5) to relevant conditions only. They will be of the general description of those included in the phrase
in particular, be framed by reference to the description or origin",
and he will not go outside those for the conditions that he is to impose.
I think that that will satisfy many of the difficulties that I have in mind. It is with pleasure that I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 14

FUELLING OF NEW AND CONVERTED POWER STATIONS

Dr. John A. Cunningham: I beg to move Amendment No. 17, in page 13, line 33, at end insert—
'(d) section 11 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976.'.
The effect of Clause 14(6) is to make it clear that the provisions of the clause do not affect the provisions of Section 11 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. Hon. Members will be aware that that Bill, which contains provisions relating to the production of heat and electricity by local authorities, is expected to receive Royal Assent in the near future. Therefore, it is necessary that it now be added to the list contained in subsection (6) of Acts which are not affected by the provisions of Clause 14.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 15

PASSENGER CAR FUEL CONSUMPTION

6.45 p.m.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move Amendment No. 18, in page 14, line 27, after 'or', insert
',in the case of imported cars,'.
This amendment and Amendments Nos. 19, 20 and 21, which we are not discussing, are all connected with the same clause and are simple additions which are self-explanatory.
Manufacturers, in the case of cars manufactured in the United Kingdom,

are asked to comply with this paragraph. We have said that importers of cars, in the case of cars manufactured elsewhere, must also comply with the paragraph.
It is a simple matter, and if this amendment is accepted I hope that I may move formally the others to which I have referred, unless, of course, any hon. Member wishes to ask a specific question about them.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 19, in page 14, line 39, leave out 'relating to' and insert
'as to the results of officially approved tests on all'.

No. 20, in page 15, line 1, after 'it' insert
',so as to be clearly visible to those to whom the car is displayed'.

No. 21, in page 15, line 32, leave out
'required (pursuant to orders under this section) for'
and insert
'carried out or, as the case may be, required to be carried out (pursuant to orders under this section) on'.—[Dr J. Dickson Mabon.]

Clause 21

INTERPRETATION

Dr. John A. Cunningham: I beg to move Amendment No. 22, in page 19, line 18, leave out 'and'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Government Amendment No. 23.

Dr. John A. Cunningham: Amendment No. 22 is the first of the two amendments that we are considering and is a paving amendment to the second. In fact, the word "and" is misplaced. It should have appeared at the end of line 20.
The second amendment defines "United Kingdom legislation" referred to in the clauses of the Bill. It makes it clear that the expression "United Kingdom legislation" does not mean only legislation of this Parliament but includes enactments of other legislatures in the United Kingdom.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 23, in page 19, line 23, at end insert
';and
United Kingdom legislation" includes any enactment for the time being in force in any part of the United Kingdom.'.—[Dr. John A. Cunningham.]

Clause 23

CITATION, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT

Dr. John A. Cunningham: I beg to move Amendment No. 24, in page 19, line 32, after 'appointed', insert 'for different provisions and'.
This is a purely drafting amendment to make it clear that different provisions of the Bill may come into force on different days.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 2

ADMINISTRATION AND OTHER MATTERS

Mr. Gray: I beg to move Amendment No. 25, in page 21, line 26, leave out
'it appears to him expedient'
and insert
'he reasonably considers he needs them'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss the following amendments:

No. 26, in page 21, line 31, leave out
'it appears to the Secretary of State expedient'
and insert
'the Secretary of State reasonably considers he needs them'.

No. 27, in page 21, line 44, after 'are', insert 'by notice in writing'.

Mr. Gray: We are making very good progress, and we are coming to the stage where, in view of the co-operation of the Opposition, the Government may be prepared to accept one or two very small amendments.
The purpose of Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 is to impose on the Secretary of State the discipline of reasonable use of the powers and to remove the sole discretion element reflected in the word "expedient". No one is particularly attracted to "expedient", and in our

view it is reasonable to ask that these amendments be accepted.
Any phrase in legislation giving the Government unqualified powers to exercise their judgment should be questioned. In this case, it governs the power to call for information.
Amendment No. 27 is a very small amendment. Its purpose is to require the call for documents to be made in writing. It seems to us very reasonable to ask that this power should be implemented in writing. It is very difficult to imagine that as reasonable a person as the Under-Secretary will refuse to agree to it.

Dr. John A. Cunningham: Nicely though the hon. Gentleman has put his proposition, and although we have drafted many amendments in consultation with the Opposition, I must ask the House not to accept this one.
The amendments to Schedule 2(1) would, firstly, provide that the powers could be exercised only when considered necessary, rather than expedient, and, secondly, have the effect, by casting the condition for the exercise of the powers in objective rather than subjective terms by inserting the word "reasonably", of exposing exercise of the powers to continual challenge in the courts.
I should like to explain why the Government consider this unacceptabe. The purpose of paragraph 1(2) is to describe the purposes for which each of the powers in paragraph 1(1) to obtain information may be exercised. The intention is that within the purposes described—the purposes are limited—the Secretary of State should be free to act as and when he thinks fit, and that is reasonable. The amendments limit the purpose and this is not acceptable to the Government.
Much the same can be said of the other amendments, which I ask the House to reject.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The next amendment selected for discussion is Amendment No. 28, in page 22, line 14, after 'may', insert:
'at any reasonable time (or, in a situation which in his opinion is or may be urgent, at any time)'.
With it we may take Government Amendment No. 29.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move Amendment No. 29, in page 22, line 19, at end insert:
'at all reasonable hours and'.
This amendment is to meet the Opposition's amendment No. 28, and is in a better technical form.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 30, in page 22, line 24, leave out sub-paragraph (2) and insert—
(2) The powers of this paragraph are not exercisable—

(a) for the purpose only of securing compliance with orders under section 15 of this Act;
(b) except when an Order in Council under section 3 of this Act is in force, for the purpose only of securing compliance with orders under section 1(1).".—[Dr. John A. Cunningham.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The next amendment selected for discussion is Amendment No. 32, in page 22, line 31, leave out "sub-paragraph (2) below" and insert:
sub-paragraphs (1A) and (2) below and when an Order in Council under section 3 of this Act is for the time being in force".
With it we may take Government Amendment No. 33.

Amendment No. 34, page, 22, line 46, at end insert—
(1A) Except when an Order in Council under section 3 of this Act is for the time being in force, a justice of the peace (in Scotland a justice of the peace or a sheriff) shall not issue a warrant in pursuance of the preceding sub-paragraph unless he is satisfied that—

(a) admission to the premises was sought and refused by or on behalf of the occupier after not less than seven days' notice of the intended entry had been served on the occupier; or
(b) admission to the premises was sought in a case of urgency and was refused by or on behalf of the occupier; or
(c) the premises are unoccupied; or
(d) application for admission to the premises would defeat the object of the entry;

Government Amendments Nos. 35 and 38:

Amendment No. 39, in page 23, line 38, after "may", insert:
subject to paragraph 4(1A) above,".

Mr. Gray: We are being extremely cooperative in hastening on with the busi-

ness, and the Government might accept our amendments—[Interruption.] Is the Minister indicating that he will accept them?

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: If the hon. Gentleman will not move Amendment No. 32, I shall formally move Amendments Nos. 33, 35 and 38, which make a fair swap for his three amendments.

Mr. Gray: As the Minister is obviously anxious to co-operate, I shall not move Amendment No. 32.

Amendments made: No. 33, in page 22, leave out lines 37 to 43 and insert—
(b) the circumstances specified in subparagraph (1A) or, as the case may be, sub-paragraph (1B) below are present,".

No. 35, in page 22, line 46, at end insert:
'(1A) If no Order in Council under section 3 of this Act is for the time being in force the circumstances in which a warrant may be issued are that either—

(a) admission to the premises has been refused after, if the case is not one of urgency, not less than seven days' notice of intention to enter had been given to the occupier; or
(b) application for admission would defeat the object of the entry or the premises are unoccupied.

(1B) If such an Order in Council is for the time being in force the circumstances in which a warrant may be issued are that either—

(a) admission of the premises has been refused, or a refusal is apprehended, and notice of intention to apply for a warrant has been given to the occupier; or
(b) application for admission would defeat the object of the entry, or the case is one of urgency, or the premises are unoccupied or the occupier is temporarily absent.'.—[Dr. J. Dickson Mabon.]

No. 36, in page 23, line 1, leave out sub-paragraph (2) and insert:
'(2) A warrant under this paragraph—

(a) is not to be issued authorising entry for the purpose only of securing compliance with orders under section 15 of this Act;
(b) except when an Order in Council under section 3 of this Act is in force, is not to be issued authorising entry for the purpose only of securing compliance with orders under section 1(1).'.—[Dr. John A. Cunningham.]

No. 38, in page 23, line 36, leave out 'paragraph 4(1)(b)' and insert:
'paragraph 4(1A) or, as the case may be (1B)'.—[Dr. J. Dickson Mahon.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 4

REPEALS AND SAVINGS

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move Amendment No. 40, in page 26, line 25, leave out from 'Act' to end of line 29.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we may take Government Amendments No. 46, 48 and 49.

Dr. Mabon: Amendment No. 40 is a paving amendment. Amendments No. 46 and 48 are the important amendments in the group. They are technical amendments providing that orders under Sections 2 and 4(3) of the Fuel and Electricity (Control) Act shall be treated as though they had been made under the corresponding provision of the Bill. The amendments remove uncertainty as to what offences may be committed.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 41, in page 26, leave out lines 31 to 38.—[Dr. J. Dickson Mahon.]

No. 42, in page 26, leave out lines 39 and 40;

No. 43, in page 26, leave out lines 43 to 45.—[Dr. John A. Cunningham.]

No. 44, in page 26, leave out lines 49 to 51;

No. 45, in page 26, line 51, at end insert—


'S.I.
1976/1204
The Paraffin (Maximum (Retail Prices) Order 1976.'—[Dr. J. Dickson Mabon.]

Mr. Gray: May we have your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker? A number of my hon. Friends wish to take part in the debate on Amendment No. 47. If we start that debate before 7 o'clock will it automatically be interrupted at that hour? If so, shall we be able to continue at that point later?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The business will be interrupted at 7 o'clock.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: We shall oppose Amendment No. 47. If a vote is wanted I think we should have it now.

Amendment made: No. 46, in page 26, line 51, at end insert—
'The above orders are to be treated for the purposes of this Act as if they had been made under section 1(1) or (as the case may be) section 1(2) of this Act, and references in this Act to powers and orders under it and similar references, are to be construed accordingly where the context permits.'.—[Dr. J Dickson Mabon.]

Mr. Norman Fowler: I beg to move Amendment No. 47, in page 27, line 1, leave out lines 1 to 4.
We wish to have an exploratory debate about the Government's position on an issue which causes concern to the public—that of the temporary speed limits and the Government's powers. My case is simple. It is that the present 50 mph and 60 mph limits should be scrapped. The temporary speed limits were introduced as a fuel economy measure in December 1974 and were renewed in December 1975.
Incidentally, I very much welcome the presence on the Government Front Bench of the Under-Secretary of State for Transport. As this is the first time I have spoken since he was appointed to his new job, may I congratulate him on taking up his post at the new Department of Transport, and wish him a successful and brief stay in that job?
The Act under which the limits were imposed has led to some misunderstanding among the public. As I understand the Act, it enables the Government to continue to use the power to impose speed limits on fuel economy grounds. What it does not do is automatically to renew the 50 and 60 m.p.h. limits which are now in operation. As concern has been expressed by the motoring organisations, it would be a good idea if the Minister would confirm the situation—

It being Seven o'clock, and there being Private Business set down by The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, under Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking Private Business), further Proceeding stood postponed.

Orders of the Day — CROMARTY PETROLEUM ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL (By Order)

Order for consideration read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now considered.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): I must inform the House that Mr. Speaker has announced his provisional selection of amendments as follows: Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 5 will be taken together, and with Amendment No. 8 we shall take also Amendment No. 9.

7.1 p.m.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Gregor MacKenzie): Perhaps it will help the House in considering this measure if I set out the Government's position. There has been a great deal of public discussion and correspondence on this matter, and I hope that a short explanation will help the House.
In the first place, I must make clear the role of the Secretary of State for Scotland under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, under which this measure is promoted. Under that Act there is provision for the examination by Parliamentary Commissioners of any opposed provisional order. This is to give objectors the opportunity to argue their case and for the matter to be examined in Scotland. This procedure was followed in this case. A Commission of two Members of each House heard Mr. Nightingale representing the owners of the land concerned and the promotors in Edinburgh in May. The hon. Members for Dumbartonshire, Central (Mr. McCartney) and Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) were members of the Commission. After hearing both sides, the Commissioners made their decision to recommend that the order be confirmed.
At that stage in the procedure it is the duty of the Secretary of State for Scotland to lay the necessary confirmation Bill before Parliament. While he can, in theory, refuse to do this, successive Secretaries of State have always honoured the undertaking given during the passage of the Procedure Act that they would not set aside the recommendations of Parliamentary Commissioners except in exceptional circumstances—for example, where

there had been some significant procedural irregularity. There is no question of anything of that kind here. It was therefore my right hon. Friend's clear duty to give the order the normal facilities and lay the Bill before the House.
The purpose of the provisional order which the Bill would confirm is to authorise the promoters, the Cromarty Petroleum Company Ltd., to acquire compulsorily some 47 acres of land and foreshore at Nigg. This is part of a total area of about 800 acres required for the construction of the proposed refinery and its associated marine terminal. I understand that the promoters have already purchased the remainder of the land they require.
The Bill is not concerned with any other aspects of the proposal for which planning permission has been given, but the House may wish to consider the matter in the light of wider considerations to which I shall now turn.
Let me deal first with the subject of planning. The planning history of the area over the last 10 to 15 years has identified the Cromarty Firth as one of the key areas for development in the Highlands where industrial growth can be of great benefit not only to the immediate area but to the Highlands as a whole. This view was taken by the old Ross and Cromarty County Council and by the Highlands and Islands Development Board and, since local government reorganisation, by the Highland Regional Council. It is backed up by a number of planning studies. These include the report of the Jack Holmes Planning Group, commissioned by the Highland Board in 1967. The view has been given expression in a series of amendments to the development plan promoted by Ross and Cromarty County Council and approved by successive Secretaries of State.
The practical effect of this policy has been the establishment of the aluminium smelter at Invergordon, the oil production platform yard at Nigg and the pipe-coating yard at Invergordon, and the identification of a number of other sites appropriate for industrial development. The policy also led to the setting up in 1973 of the Cromarty Firth Port Authority to control harbour developments in


the area. It is therefore a clearly established objective of both the local authorities and successive Governments that the Cromarty Firth should be developed industrially. It is against this background that the application for the building of the refinery with which this Bill is concerned fell to be considered.
The reasons for the Secretary of State's decision on the matter are set out at length in the letter sent to the Highland Regional Council on 1st March this year, following his receipt of the report of the public local inquiry. Copies of this letter were placed in the Library. I need not go over that ground in detail, but would draw attention to the Secretary of State's main conclusions. He accepted that no overriding national need for further refining capacity had emerged at the inquiry. On the other hand, he considered the new jobs important for the economy of the area. It is estimated that the project would produce about 1,500 jobs during construction and about 450 when in operation. The Secretary of State considered, in addition, that the project would increase the possibility of attracting other developments to the Cromarty Firth. In these circumstances he considered that it would be a very serious step to turn away a development of this kind in an area already identified for industrial growth. Taking account of all the factors, he decided that the advantages of the proposed refinery outweighed the disadvantages.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a purely factual point, do the Government accept the view that to create one permanent local job will cost between £100,000 and £400,000 of Government money? Does that coincide with the Government's estimates?

Mr. MacKenzie: My hon. Friend anticipates what I shall say later on the financial aspect. No doubt he will have an opportunity to make his comments during the debate. I wish to emphasise that in terms of jobs the decision that has been taken is warmly welcomed by many people in the Highlands. It was certainly welcomed by the Scottish Council for Development and Industry and the Highlands and Islands Development Board, as well as by local authorities and local trade unions. Members

of the Scottish Trades Union Congress have discussed this matter with me because they are concerned about it.
A further point that has been exercising the minds of hon. Members is the question of refining capacity. I have been made aware of the anxieties of many of my colleagues on that score. Therefore, it is my good fortune to have with me this evening on the Government Front Bench my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Energy, who will have an opportunity a little later to add his voice to our deliberations. No doubt he will then deal with some of the points that evercise the mind of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell).
Other questions that have been posed relate to the financial assistance given to the project under the Industry Act 1972. I wish to make it clear that so far no application has been received either by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry or by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland from the Cromarty Petroleum Company for any grant under the Act. Therefore, anything I say on that subject is in that sense hypothetical.

Mr. Russell Johnston: The Minister will probably know that the handout issued by the public relations office of the company said that the company intended to make the normal application.

Mr. MacKenzie: I accept that. I was about to deal with it. I am making it clear that at this moment we have not received these applications. I am dealing with something that I anticipate.
The regional development grants that are paid under Part I of the Act are very much a matter for the Secretary of State for Industry. Hon. Members will know that they are paid at the rate of 20 per cent. on most capital expenditure on buildings and equipment incurred on qualifying premises in development areas. These include the Cromarty Firth. Premises qualify in terms of the Act if they are wholly or mainly used for the qualifying activities. Oil refining is among these activities, as are other processes to be found in oil installations, although oil storage is not. On the facts at present


available I understand that it is impossible to say whether the entire capital costs would attract the 20 per cent. grant. That will depend on precisely what is done on the site and how it is done.
As to whether regional development grants in such a case represents value for money, I can only say that these grants form part of a complex mix of automatic and selective incentives designed to promote the growth of modern, internationally competitive industry in our assisted areas. It would be dangerous to base a case for altering individual features of this package on the alleged merits or demerits of a particular project that received assistance. Successive Governments have felt it right to devote considerable resources to incentives. In any case the financing of the package has to compete with the claims of other programmes, such as housing and schools, in the normal processes of interdepartmental reviews of public expenditure.

Mr. J. W. Rooker: Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the major criticisms of Government regional policy as a whole has been the fact that it is not sufficiently selective? One of the points in the Chancellor's statement of 22nd July announcing public expenditure cuts was that there would be more selection in future—the implication being that certain companies in certain areas would not get the automatic grants that they have been receiving.

Mr. MacKenzie: What my hon. Friend is asking me to do is to work under an Act of Parliament that we do not have. We are operating under the 1972 Act. I have been describing the purposes of that Act.
Selective financial assistance under Section 7 of the Industry Act 1972 may be given to viable projects in manufacturing industries in the assisted areas where it is likely to provide, maintain or safeguard employment. An oil refinery would be eligible to apply for such assistance. In Scotland. Section 7 is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland and in exercising the powers under the section he is advised by the Scottish Industrial Development Advisory Board.
I have tried to cover in a short space of time some of the matters that I know

have been concerning hon. Members. I know of the concern that has been expressed, but I hope that all hon. Members will appreciate the importance of this development in Scotland and the thought that has been given to it in Scotland by a whole range of interests, including the Highland Regional Council, the Highlands and Islands Development Board, and the trade unions. All of these are anxious, as I am, to see progress made in this matter. I hope that the House will now feel able to allow the Bill to make progress.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: I naturally hesitate to intervene in what is principally a Scottish matter. Although the House may disagree with what I have to say, I defend my right to say it with equal vigour. I notice that three Members of the Scottish National Party are present and, encouraged by their lack of reticence to intervene in English affairs, I am sure that they will not hesitate to allow me to intervene in what is a Scottish affair.
I know the area of Nigg, although not, I am sure, anything like as well as other hon. Members present. It is a beautiful area as well as one which is extremely important from an industrial development point of view. We must bear in mind that there are strong amenity and natural beauty aspects to this matter which have to be weighed in the balance. It is not my intention to comment on them. Those who represent the area will do so more ably than I. All I wish to say is that it is one of those parts of our countryside which we should relinquish to industrial development only with the greatest reluctance.
What has to be asked is whether the expenditure of this public money is justified. One starts by looking at the company to which we are giving £36 million-odd. I know the history of this company and how its parentage traces back to a substantial character. It is curious that the only representation of this company in Britain is a small office in Soho Street. The thought of £36 million-worth of taxpayers' money going in that direction leads me to ask my first question, namely, are we certain that the grant of this money is watertight and that it will not simply go out of the


country rather than into the ground at Nigg?
Are we certain that the company will pay British taxes? We have heard a lot about transfer prices in the past. We have heard a lot about the means by which money is shuffled in and out of refineries by oil companies. The House would not wish to grant permission which would involve the expenditure of this large sum of public money without being satisfied on that point. I am not saying that we cannot be satisfied, but it is up to the Government to satisfy us.
The curious thing is that although this company is reputed to be, at the back of it all, a company of substantial means which will be able to find the other £144 million which it is estimated is necesssary to build this refinery, it appears to have a special fund-raiser in London. The Daily Telegraph of 1st October said:
A fund-raiser sent from New York is working 'semi-permanently' in London to raise the other £144 million required. He is Mr. Steve Stavrides, described to me last night as `a financial expert'.
If he is busy seeking the other £144 million, why is it that the company says in its statement laid before Parliament:
There can be no doubt as to the financial capacity of the company to mount the present project in view of its base in this organisation"?
It seems curious that, if a company has such funds at its disposal, the presence of this financial expert is necessary to raise the other £144 million in London. If he succeeded, that would not be inward investment, which, we have been told, is one of the advantages. It is borrowing our money to make the investment. That point should be cleared up.
I want next to look at the economics of this in terms of jobs. The usual cog of light industry jobs in terms of the 20 per cent. grant normally payable is between £1,000 and £2,000 a job. That represents the taxpayer's contribution. For more capital-intensive jobs, however, that figure has been known to rise to up to £25,000 or even £50,000 per job. Indeed, the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Dr. Bray) made a considerable impact some years ago in criticising the cost per job to the taxpayer of certain industrial subsidies at that time. Many of us had some sympathy with him. Even at the figure of 450 permanent jobs to

be provided by the refinery, the cost per job works out at £78,000. That is a phenomenal sum per job.
Moreover, a new mystery is injected today into the question of the number of jobs. We were led to believe that there would be 450 permanent jobs when the refinery was working, but we read in the Financial Times today that the company has stated:
When completed, there would be 450 permanent jobs for staff operating the refinery and the same number of jobs at the marine terminal and in support services.
Are there to be 450 jobs or 900 jobs? As far as I know, that is the first time that anybody has ever mentioned the extra 450 at the marine terminal.
Incidentally, I suppose that they would be dock jobs and, as such, subject to the Dock Work Regulation Bill, being taken over by Transport and General Workers' Union men surplus from London. I do not see what benefit that would be to the Scottish economy. But let that pass. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) may wish to comment. I dangled it before him in order to bring him to his feet.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: The hon. Gentleman will recall, with reference to London, that hydrocarbons are entirely excluded from that Bill by Schedule 3.

Mr. Ridley: I cannot believe that 450 people will be employed at the terminal piping oil ashore. Presumably there is some other port complex envisaged which will handle cargo. I know of no terminal which employs 450. Even Rotterdam, I believe, does not employ that many. There is, therefore, something to be cleared up here. I am not saying that it is wrong. I just want an answer.
Then there is the problem of refining capacity. We have been told that our refineries are working at 64 per cent. To add to that capacity is unnecessary. I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Energy will tell us about that. In addition, will he say whether it is necessary to have this extra refinery in this part of the country, if it be necessary to have an extra refinery at all? It will deal only with crude from the North Sea and perhaps elsewhere, exporting the products to other parts of the world and some to this country.
As I understand it, there is no reason why the refinery should be sited in an area of great beauty as opposed to Grangemouth, the West Coast or any other already industrialised area. It can even be said that the jobs could more usefully be provided in the Clyde area. If there be a proven need for this extra capacity, that might be a better place for the extra jobs.

Mr. John Wells: It is my understanding that there is over-full employment in the Nigg area at present, and people are travelling 70 miles to work each day, a total journey of 140 miles. Is it not ridiculous to put this extra number of jobs there instead of, for example, as my hon. Friend suggests, in the Clyde area where people are desperate for work?

Mr. Ridley: I merely offer that suggestion to the Under-Secretary of State for comment, because I cannot claim to know a great deal about working conditions at Nigg, but I know that there is a serious shortage of jobs in the Clyde area.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Which the hon. Gentleman and his Tory friends helped to create.

Mr. Ridley: We have an economic crisis. The last occasion on which I spoke in the Chamber was on the first Monday after the recess when we debated the economic situation. In that debate, with Members of Parliament wearing their other hats and talking about our economic problems, there emerged a tentative trembling consensus that perhaps what was wrong was that the Government were spending too much money. That thought came from hon. Members on the Government side and from the Conservative Opposition as well as from hon. Members who represent Welsh, Scottish or Irish parties.
It is not good enough, when we come to another subject, to say "We dealt with public expenditure last week. Now let us spend some money". Be it remembered that £36 million is a lot of money, though not, of course, as much as when the Government came to office. Measured in dollar terms, it is rapidly declining in value. But we cannot have it both ways. We are short of public

money, and we cannot, therefore, spread it widely on every project, irrespective of merit.
If we are to spend money on aiding industrial development, we have all the greater responsibility to ensure that that industrial development is the sort of development which is needed in the British economy, which is located in the right place and which will not lead to difficult problems. If it were not for the Industry Act and its 20 per cent. automatic entitlement, I doubt that there would be many who would feel that this was a project to which money should go.
We have to economise, and my plea to right hon. and hon. Members, faced not with a general debate on economics but with a specific debate about the employment of £36 million of public money, is that they should not forget the economic crisis, that they should use that selection, that perspicacity and that desire to plan which is so much a party of the Labour Party's philosophy, and that they be prepared for once to tell the Government "No".

Mr. Dalyell: I begin, as I have on previous occasions, by declaring an interest—the interest of those of my constituents in Bo'ness and roundabout who work in the refinery at Grangemouth.
There have been references to the trade unions, and in that connection I shall now quote what was said by the secretary of the BP (UK) shop stewards' committee, Mr. Neil Boner. He said:
Tam Dalyell has the full backing of our committee, which is made up of refinery workers at Grangemouth, Kent, Landarcy and Belfast. Our views are also shared by other members of the T &amp; GWU in other refineries throughout the United Kingdom who recognise that the whole of Europe is faced with surplus refining capacity and that the building of a new refinery anywhere in the United Kingdom is not an economically viable proposition.
Since this is but a three-hour debate, I put this simply in the form of a question to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Energy. What was said by Mr. John Miller and Mr. Jack Jones when they went to see the Secretary of State for Energy? May we have an account of that meeting? I do not ask that as a rhetorical question. I genuinely do not know the answer, and I think it extremely pertinent to the debate.
Although, technically, my hon. Friend the Minister of State at the Scottish Office is correct when he says that the Bill is concerned with no matters other than planning, it is the very crux of the argument put by many of us that no sensible planning decision can be made on an issue such as this without some overall knowledge of refinery strategy in this country, and it is meaningless to talk about this kind of planning decision unless one can look at the wider context.

Mr. MacKenzie: Perhaps I did not make myself crystal clear to my hon. Friend and others when I opened the debate. What we are concerned about is the confirmation order. It is about 47 acres of land, not about general planning considerations, which have already been settled and laid out in the Secretary of State's letter of 1st March 1976 to the Highland Regional Council.

Mr. Dalyell: That is a very technical view of the situation, and my response to my hon. Friend is the one I have given him previously in a letter. Back-Bench Members of Parliament can count themselves fortunate from time to time that they can express their views on such an issue as this. By chance—it is only by chance—this issue has come up for us to do something about it. We have some responsibility in the matter, even if we are not strictly in order, technically, and when we have an opportunity to raise our voices on a matter of national strategy we are grateful for the chance to do so. This is where Private Bills can be very interesting in terms of the relation between the Executive and the House of Commons.
7.30 p.m.
I shall stick to precisely one issue—the question whether this country needs the green-fields refinery site at this time. It is said by Conservatives that perhaps in some way I have been brainwashed by BP. It is true that on my initiative, since I became interested in this matter, I went to BP, and I have a continuing relationship with that company. But I also went to Esso and Shell.
The figures that are given are that at the moment we are using only 60 per cent. to 65 per cent. capacity, and projections to the 1980s do not show anything different. If this were just the

evidence of the oil companies, it could be argued that somehow or other I had become the creature of the oil companies' objections. But that would be very unfair and probably wrong, because I do not see how they could lie about this even if they wanted to. Most of their refinery workers know the truth that we are using between 60 per cent. and 65 per cent.
There is evidence, not only from every petroleum journalist, but also from the Chairman of the British National Oil Corporation, Lord Kearton himself. I quote from a speech of his which was reported on 10th April in the Glasgow Herald. He said:
I will be perfectly candid and say that it would be extremely difficult to justify. This country is possibly over-refineried at present and the existing refineries are working 60 to 70 per cent. of capacity because of the rundown in national consumption. At the moment, people are saying that it might be 1980 or more before we can get back to the 1973 level of consumption. This is why cases for new refineries are very difficult to justify on any commercial grounds.
I ask one direct question to the Under-Secretary. Is the Department of Energy saying that in its opinion—and in giving the impression, at any rate, of encouraging this project—it knows better than the man it appointed as Chairman of the BNOC? This is a very crucial question. It is a matter of judgment, and we must have an answer to it before we can go any further in this debate.
Finally, I ask a question of the Treasury. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for being on the Front Bench. In paragraph 5.10 the CARPU report says:
Recent Treasury estimates indicate that industrial subsidies for smaller scale manufacturing industry tend to range between £1,000 and £2,000 per job created, compared with £25,000 to £50,000 per job created in the larger scale industries. In the development of the Nigg refinery inevitably this figure is likely to exceed £100,000 per job created. Initial per capita costs will be high in the beginning as roads, social facilities and housing are provided in advance of a fully operative industry rate base, which in total are forecast as £40,000 in current values. The cost to the state of each one of the likely 100 local jobs created is £400,000. Benefits from the type of industrial development currently proposed for Cromarty are unlikely to accrue to any degree to outlying areas and communities.
When this matter comes to the Treasury—I understand that the applicaion has not yet reached them officially—there is a


major question whether this kind of money should be devoted to remote Ross and Cromarty or should go to areas such as Clydeside, Lanarkshire, and Merseyside, where there is an existing infrastructure.

Mr. Hector Monro: The ball is very much at the Government's feet, and when we hear their reply to this debate, we shall be able to make a final judgment. I hope that whoever replies will explain the situation more carefully than it has been explained in the past, because we want to know exactly where we stand if this Bill becomes an Act.
I have no interest to declare except a fairly detailed knowledge of the area of Easter Ross and a great love of the Cromarty Firth. The flying boat that I flew during the war was called the "Cromarty Firth". This area of Scotland is also the heart of the Clan Munro country. That is why I have an interest in what will happen to this particular part of Scotland.
We must look at this from the point of view of the planning side. My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) and the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) spoke of the economic situation that will result if the Bill gets the go-ahead. From the planning side we all accept that this is an area of great natural scenic beauty. At the same time, we also accept the necessity of developments in that area to provide work, and, in this case, a resource for Britain. However, we must balance these two points. My hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) has been very careful in striking a balance between what is required in retaining the beauty, and the necessity for employment. We must all bear this in mind tonight.
In relation to the environment, we are all aware of the problems that affect such things as bird life, tourism and transport, and in the end we must come to an impartial decision based on what is best for this area.
The Bill will have a fairly dramatic impact on the area if it becomes law. Twenty years ago this was a very beautiful area, and by and large it still is. Twenty years ago there was very little development, but since then we have seen

and accepted the advent of the distillery and the smelters at Invergordon, and the platform yard at Nigg. Now we have this proposal for the refinery.
A more difficult question for the Government is if and when they see an end to development in this area. Will there be a limit to the industrial development that will be allowed? Will the area have a green belt or landscaping around these developments, or will there be piecemeal developments indefinitely? Does the Highland Region plan say that once we have the refinery that is the end of all major developments in the area?
Naturally, if this refinery goes ahead we want to see a spin-off of small industries and other minor developments of a highly skilled nature, which will give valuable employment to the area. Are we subsequently to have another vast imposition on the countryside, which might produce another Grangemouth in the Easter Ross region? All of us believe that this is something that must be prevented at all costs.
Of course we have to accept what has been done because it is there. On balance, and subject to my next major point, I do not believe that the siting of the refinery alongside the platform yard will diminish to any major extent the already tarnished image of Nigg or, indeed, Cromarty itself. I hope that the design of the refinery will be such that it will not show above the Sutors or out into the Moray Firth. I should be interested to know whether there is some opportunity for the people of the area to ensure, if the refinery is a failure or when North Sea oil resources run out, that the site is reinstated so that it does not become an eyesore, as has happened in the central belt of Scotland.
We have all read and seen an enormous amount on this subject in the Press, in memoranda sent directly to hon. Members, and on television. The Government must answer a simple question. What control is there over the developer to ensure that, if he obtains the 47½ acres by compulsory purchase he does not sell the site off to another bidder at a higher price? The Private Bill procedure is a very powerful weapon and we want to be sure that it will not be just a stepping stone to enable someone to make a remarkably quick profit.
Payments are to be made by the Government under the Industry Act in the form of huge grants. Are the Government satisfied that the project is viable? Will there be adequate oil to refine? Will it be a viable proposition, and will the taxpayer see his money wisely invested? The Minister must give us a clear answer on that. He must have studied the matter in detail before overturning the reporter's decision.

Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: I am slightly puzzled by the hon. Member's attitude. He has been a Scottish Member for a long time. He knows the procedure on private legislation. It is the promoter's responsibility to ensure that the case is heard in the House of Commons. My task is simply the formal one of laying the confirmation order before the House of Commons. That is what I have done.

Mr. Monro: It is not as simple as that. This is a very important matter. The Minister must not try to escape through the procedures of a Private Bill. We are entitled to know the answers to the questions that I have posed. Both the taxpayers and those who are interested in the development of Easter Ross have a right to the answers. If the refinery is a success, can we be sure that the taxation paid upon its operations will benefit Britain and will not go to a foreign country?
If the Minister can give satisfactory answers on these questions I shall support my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty in saying that the project should go ahead. However, we must be sure on all the points that I have raised. We do not want the 47½ acres or the whole site being used by some other company for purposes different from those set out in the Bill. It is up to the Government to provide satisfactory answers.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I was very moved by the concern shown by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) for the workers of the Clyde. He is regarded on the Clyde with little less than affection and is known as the butcher of UCS because of his plans for shutting down UCS and putting out of work thousands of Clydeside workers and many

other people who were dependent on those jobs.
I must say to the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) that perhaps the trembling of a consensus is beginning to come into the House. I do not know whether I could have commented better on the morality of private enterprise than the hon. Member who warned the Government to be careful because if the project were given the go-ahead the Government might be milked and the land sold off to someone else at a better price. That is part of the conception mentioned by the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) when he spoke of the unacceptable face of capitalism.
The choice which faces me presents me with a great dilemma. I am being asked to choose between supporting an absentee landlord and a transatlantic entrepreneur. That is not the sort of choice I like to make.
There is the problem of planning, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Dumfries and which was raised in a different but equally valid context by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). On both counts the general planning permission system in this country is quite unsatisfactory. We ought to have a much more direct control over the planning of major capital investment projects like refineries. We should not be dependent upon saying that we would like to open a refinery or a major industrial complex and then having to decide whether one particular project should go ahead. There should be much more positive control.
General planning arrangements present the same difficulty. Local authorities tend to deal wtih particular applications as they come along, and that poses problems. Attempts were made in the past to try to resolve this problem, and that was the genesis of the reform of local government in Scotland and England and Wales. The idea was that by having bigger regions with major planning powers one could forecast beyond immediate applications. By having general structural planning procedures the local authorities were supposed to decide throughout Scotland which areas were available for industrial development and how much development there would be in the area. Companies would know in


advance where they stood before they applied for planning permission. However, my impression is that the hopes for planning in the regions have not come to fruition. As far as I know, none of the regions has prepared even the sort of structural plans that we were discussing before local government reform.
I do not dissent from the argument that the Industry Act 1972 is not selective enough, though I believe that the Government's control over applications is more positive than it is given credit for. It is not automatic. There has to be close examination before applications are granted, but I should like to see the system become more selective.
I poked a little fun at the hon. Member for Dumfries, but he made a valid point. Before any money is put in we should have certain guarantees. I do not object to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian trying to protect the jobs of people in his area, but one of the major questions, apart from refining capacity, is the cost of jobs, especially in capital-intensive industries, under the Industry Act. I do not know whether it is possible to put a figure on this, but we may have to be prepared to pay a very high price to get jobs.
When I used to argued, as I do now, that Governments were far too keen on pouring money into the pockets of private enterprise to keep industries going as well as to start new ones, the late George Middleton, former General Secretary of the STUC, who had a strong Marxist background as a former member of the Communist Party, as my Scottish colleagues will well know, used to say that the road to Socialism is never paved with derelict industries. Perhaps I might adapt that and say that the road to prosperity in the Highlands is not paved with areas which are bankrupt of jobs. The Highlands face problems of few job opportunities and not only the export of capital but the export of human beings who have nothing to keep them there. I accept that we should be prepared to pay a high price, if necessary, to get jobs to the Highlands and Islands.
What is the Scottish National Party policy here? My local paper, the Evening Express, is reporting a campaign by the SNP to sow alarm and despondency among people working in the oil

industry by saying that the prosperity of the oil boom is short lived, that these people will soon lose their jobs, and implying that it is the fault of the Westminster Parliament. The SNP should answer here as well as in Aberdeen.
Its policy of halving the Government targets on oil would mean no more development, a massive loss of jobs and disaster for Scotland. I hope it will not shilly-shally. Let the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) explain why his party is sowing alarm and despondency while at the same time saying that Scotland's whole future depends on oil.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is ignorant of SNP policy. We take great care to publicise it on many occasions. Does he not accept that there is a crisis in the platform industry and that the policy of successive Governments to issue licences in large bursts has contributed to it? Will he also agree that the main benefit which Scotland can gain from oil, apart from the petro-chemical and refining matters which we shall be discussing later, will come from the revenue raised from taxes which can be ploughed back into the economy?

Mr. Hughes: Of course the revenue will be very important, but if we halve production, we halve the revenue.
The SNP cannot continue to say that oil will pay for everything in Scotland and then say the revenue is to be cut. Unless fields are to be opened for production, one cannot build rigs, and the fields cannot be opened till they have been explored. Jobs in Aberdeen do not depend on oil rig construction but on exploration and the servicing of existing rigs. SNP policy in Aberdeen is wrong. The SNP is trying there, as it does everywhere else, to deceive the people.
I hope that when jobs are provided in the Cromarty area the infrastructure will be taken into account. It may be that part of the policy of the Government and local authorities should be that corn-panics ought to take some of the responsibility for providing housing, education and health services. It should not be on open-ended contract. There will be a lot of money coming in and companies should be prepared to make a contribution.
However, the final responsibility for providing services will rest with the Government and local authorities and we cannot embark on major industrial expansion without providing the infrastructure. When the smelter went to Invergordon the then Labour Government provided the infrastructure to make the life of workers more tolerable. The present Government have taken account of this need in their policy of giving extra cash to oil-related areas.
Not everyone finds Highland scenery beautiful; some find it bland. I agree that the Cromarty area is beautiful, but are we to penalise for ever people living in beautiful areas by saying that there must be no industrial expansion there, that they must live in poverty, and that there must be no job opportunities for their families because some of us visit the areas occasionally and find them attractive?
Are we equally to say that because there is an industrial complex at Grange-mouth the people there must always have industrial complexes imposed on them. Many of the people in Bo'ness, while enjoying their work and the rewards which it brings, are concerned that their environment is not all that it might be.

Mr. Dalyell: I would withdraw my opposition, not within hours, but within minutes if two things were to happen—first, a statement from the Secretary of State for Energy that we need this refinery on the projected basis; and secondly, a statement from the Treasury saying that it thinks this the best way of using £40 million or much more of public money and better than investment in energy, railways or a hundred and one other projects we could all think of.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Hughes: If it were a question of how best to raise resources or whether the money should be spent in Nigg as opposed to Clydeside, it would have to be answered, but that is not the question. We are not being asked to decide upon alternative places but whether we shall make possible an industrial development in the Cromarty area by passing the Bill. If we do not do so, the prospects of jobs are totally and completely gone. The passing of the Bill does not guarantee that the jobs will come, it does not guarantee that the project will go ahead

and that everything will be lovely, but at least it does not close the doors.
The people of the Highlands have had to live for too long without real prospects because it has been an area to which people have come from outside for the shooting or fishing, for its beauty or for tourism. It has always been kept in that way. I believe that we have a responsibility to pass the Bill if for no other reason—I believe it is a compelling one—than that failure to do so would stop the project, good, bad or indifferent, stone dead. I believe that the opportunities are such that we should not take that risk.

Mr. Russell Johnston: I find myself in complete agreement with the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes). The normal reaction from Highland Members when faced with a proposition of this sort—indeed, I suspect that it is the reaction of Members throughout the country—is "Jobs are a good thing". That is certainly the reaction when we are faced with terrible unemployment, especially when there is the prospect of a range of skilled jobs being available. At the same time one is anxious that they be secure jobs in so far as any sort of employment can be secure in that sense.
It is worth emphasising what the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North said—namely, that Highland Members are most conscious of the necessity to conserve and protect the environment and the fine surroundings in which they live. They are also equally conscious of the need to ensure that developments take place in a balanced and sensitive manner. I rather resent being told that such developments should come only very seldom, that I had better watch my amenity and that I do not care properly for my amenity. I resent being told that I do not appreciate the surroundings in which I live. I particularly resent those comments because I have seldom heard those who make them supporting the argument for work and job opportunities over the years that that argument has been made. It is necessary to provide a range of opportunities in the Highlands as well as in other areas.
I must say, like the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro), that I have seldom participated in a debate in which


I felt so utterly dependent upon the Government doing their sums correctly or knowing what they are doing. The feeling that I am dependent upon the Government in that way is not a happy one, because their par for the course is not awfully good. The Government must genuinely know that Mr. Ludwig is right and has made proper calculations. They must be confident, as many people have said, that he is dependable and will not sell the land once he has obtained it. We must also be certain that if the petro-chemical complex happens it has some certainty and solidity. For myself—I do not speak in a party sense—I should have no objection to the Government taking an equity shareholding in foreign companies in turn for the grant that they generously give. Indeed, that might have helped in some other places that we all have in mind.
It is difficult for an ordinary Back Bencher to make a proper and balanced view. All those who have taken part in the debate have said that the correspondence they have received has been voluminous. I have not read the vast report to which the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) referred. It was commissioned only in July of this year, but those responsible have managed to reach definitive conclusions in a very short time. They must be very clever people.
Likewise, we have been dealing with the views provided by the company's public relations people, who in offshore oil make a counter-argument to the various stories that have been presented in the Press and to which reference has been made by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). For example, they argue that the cost-per-job argument is dispensed with by what is called the output-per-job argument. I should like the Minister to express a view on that. It is claimed in the public relations document that
The country will recover its grant after three years on stream from operating costs alone.
I am not in a position to judge whether that is right or wrong. It may be right or it may be wrong. Likewise, it is argued that refining capacity is needed. The contrary view has already been put by the hon. Member for West Lothian. I do

not in any way criticise the fact that he is in contact with BP. We must also bear in mind that BP has an interest and will tend not to be completely objective in these matters.
This is a highly complex matter and it is hard to get to grips with it in a three-hour debate. If Parliament is to have a say in these matters, as it should when so much public money is involved initially, I do not think that this is the best method. Only a prolonged interrogative procedure, such as that offered by a Select Committee, has any chance of bringing out something of a definitive nature.

Mr. Roger Moate: Did the hon. Gentleman support the motion before the House to refer this matter to a Joint Committee of both Houses? Would not that have met the point that he has made?

Mr. Johnston: At that stage the pressure of time was such that the point had been reached when it was rather late for taking that course. That should have been done at an earlier stage. Equally, the House should look rather closely at this private legislation. The Minister bad said that the Government, by the terms of order and procedure, are rather inhibited from answering some of the questions that many Members feel are fundamental to the whole matter. I am in a dissatisfied frame of mind, but it is my intention to support this proposal, albeit with doubts and reservations. We are dependent on the Government having done their sums properly, because they have made their support clear. I hope they are right, for this could be a fine development, fitting well into the balance of industry which has grown up in the Cromarty Firth area.

Mr. Rooker: I can well understand the diffidence with which the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) finished his speech. However, in the early hours of the morning of 2nd August, after a debate lasting two and a half hours, he voted against sending the Bill to a Joint Committee of both Houses. I accept that it was put to the House on that occasion that it was too late to take that course and that it would be impracticable. But here we are on 21st October, and the Bill has not progressed.
I take a certain degree of credit, along with my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell)—

Mr. Ian Campbell: Blame.

Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend says "Blame". I accept blame, from whichever side of the House it may come.
After the debate on 2nd August, through which I sat but in which I did not contribute, I thought that I was doing the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain) a favour when, with my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer), I tabled a blocking motion. At the beginning of the debate the hon. Lady asked 12, 13 or 14 pertinent questions. There was some confusion about whether the Second Reading had been moved. However, the hon. Lady was the first speaker and she asked a good many important questions, to which she received only two or three answers. That appeared to be the position after reading the report of the debate.
For those reasons alone, and because of the matters raised in the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and I thought it worth while orally to object the following day to the further procedure of the Bill taking place. We subsequently put down a blocking motion.
I have said previously, I think on 5th August, that my only interest in this matter is that I have a right, as a Member deciding United Kingdom policy and disbursing taxpayers' money, to take an interest in any matter before the House. I have never been to Nigg, although I have talked to people from Nigg over the last couple of weeks in the House.
I deeply resent some of the remarks and attitudes from various parts of the House to the effect that this is of no interest whatever to me in Birmingham, and "Why are you poking your nose in?" In fact, I am almost coming round to supporting the devolution proposals, but if such remarks continue I shall have second thoughts before that Bill is presented for Second Reading.
It is worth pointing out that I have had no contact whatsoever with the promoters of the Bill. Public relations firms have not corresponded with me or sought to engage my interest, although I

understand that they have written to other hon. Members, including answers refuting certain statements that I have made in the House. I do not blame them for that. They have a busy time with all those who are doing programmes and writing articles—many of which have been very anti the whole enterprise and have raised many questions.
My hon. Friend the Minister keeps nodding or shaking his head every time anyone says that it is the Government's responsibility to help Back Benchers to decide what to do on this issue. The issue cannot be fudged by saying that it is private legislation. If it were private legislation, the Bill would not look as it does but would be printed in a different form altogether.
Yesterday, after tabling amendments, I went to the Private Bill Office and asked whether any certificates regarding the Bill had been deposited there. There is a requirement for certain certificates to be deposited in relation to the Bill. The reply that I received was "This is not a Private Bill, sir." If it is not a Private Bill, clearly it must be a Public Bill. Certainly it is not a Private Member's Bill. Nevertheless, the Private Bill Office does not accept it as being a Private Bill.
This is a Public Bill going through the House under the Private Bill procedure. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the Government, whatever Department is involved, to make a statement, simply because the schedule on page 2 involves a rather long preamble before the order is printed. That preamble gives a certain background of the company, stating that it is a subsidiary of a company which is registered in Liberia. In line 21 it also states:
And whereas the development so proposed"—
which has already been referred to as the oil refinery and terminal facilities—
by the Company for the provision of the said facilities is in the national interest".
I am not prepared to be told by what I consider to be a bucket-shop company what is or what is not in tile national interest. That must come from the Government. That is why one of the amendments was tabled to the effect that we wanted Ministers to bring forward a certificate giving their opinion as to whether such facilities were in the national


interest. If they were, they would have my support. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian about that. The Government cannot fudge the issue. I hope that the next Minister to speak will meet four-square the arguments and doubts that have been expressed on both sides of the House. This is not a party matter.
8.15 p.m.
My other point refers to the decision letter of 1st March. My hon. Friend the Minister made clear that the letter was available to hon. Members, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State constantly referred, on 2nd August, to the fact that the letter was a public document and that everything was spelt out in its six pages of decision and several pages of conditions. It may be a public document, but it was not placed in the Library until four days after the debate, and only in response to a Question from me. The Library has no record of the letter before then. It had not been deposited and lost. As Scottish Members will know better than I, the Scottish Office is full of shortcomings in making sure that anyone who wants to walk along the Corridor to the Library—I see my hon. Friend the Minister shaking his head again. The Library would have had to say that it had not been deposited by the Scottish Office. It was put in the Library four days afterwards.
The letter is full of contradictions, particularly concerning the number of jobs. My hon. Friend also said that many interests in Scotland support this project. I accept that. I have been lobbied during the Summer Recess and since the House returned. But there are many interests in Scotland which do not support it. I shall not read out great reams of comment, although I shall read some in the debates on the amendments if time permits. However, I was interested to receive yesterday a Press release from the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) telling me how much it supported the refinery being located at Nigg and saying that I should do something about voting for it and withdrawing my resistance. I noticed, however, that the envelope come from a public relations company in London—whose telephone was engaged for all of yesterday, so I could not return the document. How-ever, the Press release says that the

Council is independent. There is no mention in its annual reports of the £150,000 that it gets from the Government. It also says that it is non-political. I looked down the list of executive members. I confess that I received a letter this morning from someone in Scotland drawing my attention to the fact that it is not quite as non-political as it may appear at first sight. On the executive there are Members of the House, of different shades of opinion, but no Labour Member. There is a Conservative Member on the executive and a Scottish National Party Member, and two members representing the Scottish TUC. The rest seem to be people with a massive amount of commercial interests, as one would suppose in an organisation concerned with development and industry.
One of the members—I chose him at random and looked him up in "Who's Who"—is Sir William Lithgow, who, I presume, will support the statement issued yesterday in the name of the Council. He has a direct interest in this matter, at a place called Evanton further down the Cromarty Firth. Sir William Lithgow is involved in commercial enterprises that will benefit directly as a result of this refinery being placed in Nigg Bay.

Mr. Max Madden: This information is of great interest. Will my hon. Friend name the Conservative Member and the Scottish National Member who are on the executive of this organisation?

Mr. Rooker: I wondered whether I would be asked that question. It was only when I was sitting in my place that I realised that I did not know their constituencies. However, one is the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) and the other is the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Fairgrieve). I make no bones about that, but it is said that the organisation is non-political and of all shades of opinion, yet there is no one on its executive from these Labour Benches. Admittedly there are two representtives of the Scottish TUC. Although the executive is said to be nonpolitical, there are representatives from this House. Any other organisation claiming to be non-political and wishing to involve hon. Members would make it its business to ensure that all shades of


opinion were registered on the executive. I am merely making the point that no one from the Labour side of the House is on that executive.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should know that certain members of the executive of the Scottish Council are elected from among the membership of the Scottish Council, to which individuals, as well as organisations, pay subscriptions, so there is an electoral process as well as an ex officio process.

Mr. Rooker: I would not want to mislead the House. The people on the executive come from various bodies, and some may be there in personal capacities. It so happens that some are Members of Parliament, nevertheless, and the letters "MP" appear.
Another matter that I wish to raise concerns the report by the Community and Resource Planning Unit, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian. It is a massive document which I only received yesterday. I have spent six hours on a train today and have had plenty of time to read through it. I do not wish to quote at length from the numerous pages, but it is worth pointing out that this report was commissioned by residents in the area. Its one defect is that it tends to be a little anonymous.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Before my hon. Friend goes too far into this, may I say that I accept entirely what he said about the Scottish Council, but who are the people who prepared the report? What is their commercial interest in the area? Does he think that this might have influenced their views?

Mr. Rooker: It is a commercial organisation. I rang them up because the report did not state whether it was prepared by a resource planning unit or a university or an institution. It seemed a little anonymous. I was told "We are a commercial consultancy organisation". I believe that it is headed by a man called Mr. Moss; at least, his name seems to be on the document.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Did the company tell my hon. Friend who commissioned the report?

Mr. Rooker: That was what I asked. I was quite clear about it. The report, however, is a little anonymous. It says:
In July 1976 a group of residents in Easter Ross appointed the Community and Resource Planning Unit to undertake a brief planning study, draw conclusions and make recommendations concerned industrial development in the area.
I understand that the organisation has obviously looked through a lot of documents and has quite clearly been to the area.
I would only mention two points from the report because it is verbose in its length. It states:
By comparison with other oil refinery developers Cromarty Petroleum had not undertaken an adequate programme of research and analysis in the development of their scheme. In our opinion"—
they having looked at all the documents, talked to a lot of people and gone through the council minutes when the original planning decision was first of all refused—
we feel that the fear of some of the landowners likely to be beneficially affected by the planning decision, and an unstructured industrial policy for the Cromarty Firth all added to create panic among members of the former Ross and Cromarty Council when first faced with the planning application for the refinery.
Reference was made to the problems of a local authority, of whatever size, being faced with a major planning application in this matter. It is quite substantial. Certainly it is substantial enough to concern people. It refers to
the power of some of the landowners likely to be beneficially affected".
During the course of the recess a gentleman from Scotland sent me a copy of the former Ross and Cromarty Council development directory. Section 1/5 of that directory deals with this area and this very site. There is a map which clearly marks who owns the various sites. It clearly marks the highland fabricators' site, land owned by Cromarty Petroleum as well as land owned by a Mr. J. C. Robertson. On the opposite page is a statement of development of policy, and two paragraphs refer to the number of workers possibly employed on the Cromarty Petroleum Company refinery.
The document then says that there are 160 acres of land shown for oil storage. It adds that we should contact Mr. J. C. Robertson. Clearly, whoever this Mr. Robertson is, he is one of the beneficial


landowners because his land already had planning permission for the oil storage a long time before today's situation arose. In fact, Mr. J. C. Robertson was a member of the former Ross and Cromarty Council and I think he is now a member of the Highland Regional Council. When one looks at the record of the Ross and Cromarty Council minutes when the original planning decision was turned down—it was only later reversed at the instigation of Mr. Robertson and other people—one begins to see that the beneficial interest of landowners is substantiated.
It is quite remarkable that the Scottish Office had the matter reported to it in February 1975 by a Scottish ratepayer. It is significant that in the development directory published by the county council the only private individual who gets a free advertisement happens to be one of the members of the council who was a member of the planning committee. This was taken up by the Scottish Office with a man who lived in a place called Rosemakie. The Scottish Office replied "Sorry, we cannot do anything about this gentleman on the council. It is entirely up to them."
The fact that the councillor can get his free advertisement in this way is beside the point, but clearly this gentleman is one of the beneficial landowners.
I shall refer to the number of jobs which will be created, because the way that many of us will vote will depend on this. If we knew how many jobs would be created, we would have some basis on which to discuss this matter. There are three official figures. The Ross and Cromarty Development Director mentions 350 jobs. The decision letter of 1st March issued by the Secretary of State for Scotland refer to a limited amount of permanent employment—about 400 jobs. The number of jobs started to creep up even then. My right hon. Friend dismisses the fact that they would last for only 40 to 50 years because, apparently, there is a limit on the life of this refinery. Nevertheless, the number of jobs has gone up from 350 to 400.
8.30 p.m.
I now turn to the letter sent by the company to the Secretary of State for Energy yesterday. The number of jobs has now jumped, apart from the 1,500

temporary construction jobs, from 350 to 450 on a permanent basis, and an additional 450 in essential support services and on the oil terminal. Are we talking about 350, 400, 450 or 900 jobs? The answer to that question affects the calculation of the amount of public money involved in the creation of each job. Oil refinery experts claim that these figures are above the number of jobs that can be expected to be provided by an oil refinery of the size proposed.
It is incumbent upon the Front Bench—whether the Scottish Office, the Department of Industry or the Treasury—to tell us the number of jobs. If all the detailed work has been done on this project, the Government should know that figure. We shall be pushing later on the amendments and in the Lobbies, if necessary, for the exact number of jobs involved.
We are told that a fund-raiser from America is trying to find the £144 million capital required in addition to the £36 million of public money that will be automatically calculated. As no amendment on this subject has been selected, it will not be possible for me to raise this matter later. Paragraph 2 of the Schedule—which sets out the order—refers to the Lands Clauses Acts, which are a set of statutes going back to 1845. The Lands Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1945 is incorporated into the order, with the exception of three sections. Sections 15 and 16 of that Act are included in the order, and they require that all the capital required for the undertaking—the undertaking being the refinery and terminal facilities, not just the company—must be raised in toto before the compulsory powers given under the order can be put into force.
A certificate to that effect has to be deposited with the sheriff. In England under similar legislation the certificate has to be deposited with two justices. Perhaps one sheriff in Scotland is worth two justices in England. It is necessary to prove to the sheriff that the £144 million and the £36 million are available before he can issue a certificate, and only then can the compulsory purchase powers for the 47 acres granted in the order come into force.
The powers granted must be used within two years, otherwise they are completely lost. What will be the procedure?


Clearly, it will be necessary for the company to get on to the land in the immediate future. It cannot wait for several months while the fund-raiser from America raises the £144 million.
We are told in the Bill that the Cromarty Petroleum Company is a straightforward company registered under British company legislation. It is further stated in the Bill that the company is wholly owned by Universe Tankships Incorporated, which is a corporation registered in Liberia. The statement sent yesterday on behalf of the promoters of the Bill to every hon. Member explains that Universe Tankships Incorporated is a subsidiary controlled by the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, which is based in Zurich, Switzerland. Some of us wonder whether any profit made by the company will come by way of corporation tax to the British Treasury or whether it will be siphoned off to a charitable institution with offices in Switzerland.
People have gone to Zurich and done some research. A free-lance researcher journalist, Bill Williams from Alexandria, has had inquiries made in the cantonal register of companies in Zurich. The Ludwig Institute has a capital of 50,000 Swiss francs divided into 50 shares of 1,000 Swiss francs each. Where do the promoters say that the Ludwig Institute is a charitable corporation, as its name clearly implies, the articles of the Ludwig Institute state that it is formed exclusively for the purpose of medical research, with the exception that it is permitted to acquire and sell land. Clearly it must be in breach of Swiss company law because it is operating a tankship company. If it is not in breach of Swiss company law, it must be in breach of our company law. I received this information only recently. I was hoping that the debate would take place later so that I should have time to take up the matter with the Department of Trade. Clearly there is a contradiction here. The company cannot be operating legally under both Swiss and British law.
The Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research has a set-up in London about which nobody knows anything, not even the Imperial Cancer Research Fund. It is supposed to be based on the Chester

Beatty Research Institute. It is strange that until June the Imperial Cancer Research Fund had no knowledge of it whatsoever.

Mr. Wells: I agree with everything disagreeable that the hon. Gentleman is saying about these people. Much as I should wholeheartedly like to support him, I believe that what he went on to say was erroneous. In the last debate on this matter, it was said that no reputable cancer institute in this country had heard of these people. I believe that the House was inadvertently misinformed and that the hon. Gentleman is perpetuating that error. I have no brief for these people—I am dead against them—but the hon. Gentleman was in error in his last few sentences.

Mr. Rooker: I checked the last debate. The hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke) asked who was running the British end of the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research. The answer from the Opposition Front Bench was:
It is chaired by Lady Compton, and includes Lord Halsbury and Professor G. A. Smart."—[Official Report, 2nd August 1976; Vol. 916, c. 1387.]
The head of the British section is Professor T. Symington, who is in "Who's Who", but who has no mention of the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research against his name. Neither has Lord Halsbury, a former adviser to the Distillers Company. One cannot be more eminent than that in medical circles. No mention is made in any of their "Who's Who" entries of being, tied up with this body.
I accept that there is a British end, but the main point is that the Swiss end is not allowed by Swiss law to engage in anything other than medical research or the acquisition and sale of land. That is the crux of the matter.
If we pass the Bill, there is no guarantee that an oil refinery will be built. The antecedents of the company show that, under Swiss law, it is allowed only to buy and sell land. Do we need to say any more?

Mr. Giles Shaw: I intervene briefly on the question of the environment and conservation policy in particular.
I declare my interest as a member of various conservation societies and a Fellow of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which has made a submission in this matter.
I want to make two brief points. This matter has been the subject of a planning inquiry and of the planning inquiry decision being overruled. I think that that calls into question the Government's conservation policy regarding wild life in Scotland. This must be one of the obligations that we must seek to balance. Obviously, we cannot seek to balance conservation precisely vis-à-vis the number of jobs that may be provided by this project. All conservation societies accept that, where there is overriding economic advantage in a planning project, such as is believed to be the case here, it should overrule conservation interests.
The Minister will be aware that in this matter the conservation interests of the Cromarty Firth are considerable, not only on national but on international grounds.
Furthermore, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government's conservation agency, the Nature Conservancy, is currently negotiating to establish two reserves within the firth. Therefore, it is relevant to ask: where are the extenuating circumstances in the Government's conservation policy?
The Minister will agree that in Scotland there has been and will continue to be substantial debate on the conservation issue. In the case of the Shetland, Orkney and Firth of Forth developments, conservation interests have been put on one side. In this case, according to hon. Members on both sides, there must be genuine doubt about the overriding economic circumstances involved whether it be in terms of the refinery capacity argument which was put by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) or on the argument presented by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) about just how many permanent jobs will accrue from the development.
There is a large element of doubt. The conservation case is relevant and it is right that it should be aired in the House.
Nowhere is this more vital than when there is already a clash with Government conservation policy. If the overriding economic considerations are established the Minister must indicate how the Gov-

ernment view the development of conservation policy in an area like Scotland because priority can move from one to another. I hope that the Minister will comment on the conservation issue. The Minister of State, Scottish Office may shake his head, but in other capacities when he was not presenting the Bill to the House he would recognise the environment and conservation problems in oil development, transient or otherwise. Any project may in the end run out of time, but once the environment has been destroyed its recovery is impossible.
There is nothing in the promoters' document that shows that they are aware of the possible conservation problems, but the Minister will be aware that in relation to oil refineries and tankers hazards are involved. It is desirable that promoters be provided with stringent planning conditions to guard against hazards that could lead to major pollution.
I seek clarification on the reason why the Government believe that overriding economic circumstances are such that their conservation intentions are put on one side. In this case an oil refinery is to be brought very close to an area of international biological importance. This appears to be another case where the conservation argument is set on one side. At some point the buck will have to stop.

Mr. Norman Buchan: I shall make two or three points in the context of the previous discussion. I deplore the attacks made on my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). The speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr exonerates him because he said that the subject does require examination. Things have to be said, and part of the whole sorry business is that we did not have this debate earlier. Manifestly, the company and the proposal should be investigated, but I do not necessarily agree with the opposition to the Bill tonight.
First I shall deal with the question of costs. My hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr is right to say that it would be simpler for all of us if we were discussing a precise proposition with a precise grant—which some estimates put at £36 million—and the precise number of jobs that will be created, but we are not


doing that. The justification is that this is a planning Bill related to an order from the Secretary of State, and that it is not the final proposition that has to go through the sieve of examination. Nevertheless, it is clearly an important step towards that, and it should have been considered in this way.
8.45 p.m.
Those who criticise the company have also used the money argument in relation to the taxpayers' money—the £36 million—for the provision of 400 or 450 jobs. We are working in the dark, and I want to look at this for a moment. It seems a large amount of money. However, we have to keep in mind two or three other matters. The first is that all major, modern, technological developments cost a great deal of money. One has only to compare this with, say, farming. I was the other day on a farm where the capital value was more than £1 million, and it employed only four people. In other words, the capital costs there can be compared with those of the refining industry, and this is a fact of modern life. There will be no large-scale technological developments without massive sums of money. Therefore, if we are to say that £36 million for a technological development of this kind is too great when one considers the number of workers who will be involved in it, we are in effect saying that there should be no Government grants to any modern technological industry. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr would not argue that.
However, there is another argument. It is not merely a question of the amount of money per job involved. We are dealing with a particular area which is unlikely to see in the foreseeable future another opportunity for a major industrial development. There may be developments ancillary to this, to the smelter and to the Nigg yard, but there is hardly likely to be another new venture of any kind. Therefore, we are not dealing with a precise area. We are dealing with the Highlands Region and, therefore, the cost must be looked at from the point of view of the additional value to the area or region.
There is another argument as well, and it is the one which some of us pre-

sented when we fought for the creation of the Highlands and Islands Development Board. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) is in his place. That Board was one of his great achievements. We all knew then that one problem was that a certain rate of development would mean a sucking off throughout the Highlands into specific parts of the Highlands. In other words, an industrial job in one area could suck off the rest. Here, there has been a measure of industrial development which requires consolidation. It is not so much a major sucking off from the hinterland of the Highlands as the consolidation of a new industrial point which has been established. A labour-intensive industry on a large scale would have this precise sucking off effect from the hinterland, whereas a technological industry of this kind will not have the same effect as a large-scale, labour-intensive industry. There are industrial arguments involved in this, therefore.
The other point is that we tend to look at the cost of developments in relation to the provision of jobs as a raw output. If I fault the Government's economic strategy in general it is for the crude economics with which they equate public expenditure as being lost, whereas it reflects itself either in output or in income. The same applies here. It is not merely a matter of £36 million of investment working out at £100,000 per worker. There is an addition. There is also an output. In this case, the addition will involve a foreign income to the country in relation to that output. Therefore, we cannot follow with any respectability the crude argument on this. That is quite different from saying that my hon. Friends were wrong to raise this matter and to demand a discussion of the background.
That brings me to my next point. If my hon. Friends were justified in saying that this had to be examined and if I am justified in saying that the expenditune is justified, a third equation is raised, which is, how best we should pursue planning operations and control industrial developments.
There is a third solution, which I argued in relation to oil industry development in the Highlands. A company would say "I have a good site. May I


have permission to build?" Because everyone was terrified of losing the necessary employment, there was a tendency to say "Yes". Instead of planned development of oil sites, planning permission was given from point to point; but amenities matter in the Highlands. The Government should have said "Our estimate is of X number of sites for onshore developments, and we shall choose them. We shall apply for public purchase of the land and it will belong to us". It is an environmental matter, and could be dealt with by public control of that kind. Over-creation of onshore sites might not have happened.

Mr. Dalyell: Does my hon. Friend know that the Chairman of the British National Oil Corporation is against the proposition for another refinery?

Mr. Buchan: I wish that my hon. Friend had waited till I got to that topic. It is not in line with the general argument I am putting now, which is the question of public involvement. I am not an expert on oil requirements, as the Chairman of BNOC is, but I am not sure that he is necessarily any more authoritative on the question of usefulness here than a number of other people are, particularly one or two of the academic economists.
If we have the oil resources that we expect from the North Sea, why should we believe that we shall not require more refining capacity? We know that oil production in three years' time, when the refinery comes on stream, will be considerably bigger. Therefore, I cannot accept that there is a case for basing the argument on the present 64 per cent. capacity. We must consider what will happen in three years' time and for the rest of the century. As the purpose is the production of refined oil rather than crude oil, we must also bear in mind the value to us across the exchanges.
We need to talk sweet reason to two people—the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and now, apparently, the Chairman of BNOC. We are the people who should estimate whether we require a petrol refinery and where it should go, and control the production from it and own it. It should have been a public development. It is part of the craziness of our present economic strategy that we see

this as only an output expenditure instead of an investment. This is where I disagree with my two hon. Friends, but I agree that their objections concerning the company could have been met by a solution along these lines. There has been support and criticism from various sectors. Attention must be paid to the people concerned.
Reference has been made to the Scottish Council for Development and Industry. It was said that that council was not independent because it was given Government money. It was said that the council had Tory members and a SNP member. Indeed, I understand that the President of the SNP is a member of that body. Nobody has asked me to join it and nobody has asked the Chairman and President of the Labour Party in Scotland to join it. Therefore, we must examine the situation carefully.
The trade union movement in Scotland is in favour of these proposals, and we also know that they have the approval of the Highlands and Islands Development Board. Above all, the workers in the area—a total of 6,000 people—welcome the proposals. They are under no illusions about the problems for the company. I am sure that it will be found that those workers would take the view that the refinery should be public.
We are in doubt where the Tory Party stands on this matter. I know that the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) supports the project, but I was disturbed to hear one or two of the comments made by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley).
The other people about whom we are in doubt are the members of the SNP. We do not know their policy on oil matters, and it would be useful if they would tell us. There are one or two moral problems involved. Have SNP Members come down in favour of the project? At one moment they appear to be nodding agreement and at another they appear to be registering disagreement. It would be nice to know where they stand.
We in the Labour Party are in favour of the Scheme. I understand the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) is the energy spokesman for his party. I believe that the SNP policy on oil will be damaging for Scotland, and, indeed,


immoral. Its view is "We want the money that has been paid by the United Kingdom in investment in North Sea oil." Is it saying that it wants the £36 million that has already been paid by the British taxpayer?

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Does not the lion. Gentleman think that the £3,600 million a year that will arise from Scottish oil revenue is immoral in terms of where it will go? Why does he support that situation?

Mr. Buchan: The hon. Gentleman must bear in mind the Shetland situation. He is expecting the people of England and Wales to pay for the investment and for others to be in at the profitable end of the deal. That surely is immoral. The hon. Gentleman spoke of a figure of £3,600 million, but he must think of the depletion rate, which is another important consideration. On the other hand, the SNP calculates the resources on the whole 100 per cent. exploitation. It cannot go for half the rate of depletion and then use the figures based on the whole rate. That is another kind of immorality.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I did not know that the hon. Gentleman's arithmetic was so poor. Does he not accept that, if the depletion rate were reviewed in the way that the SNP has proposed, the revenues would come down, that Scotland's needs of about £1,500 million would be met and that a surplus would be available for investment? If the depletion rate were cut the oil reserves would last longer and production would be of greater value in the future.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Buchan: I am talking about the equation we have been dealing with year after year and about the number of things that can be supported on one year's revenue. The SNP is saying that it will halve the amount and then double its length, halve the resources and double them. What nonsense. I wish that it would stop treating the people of Scotland as if they were 2-year-olds.
There are other problems if the resources are to be depleted in this way. If the SNP is saying that it will drop all this nonsense it will have to pay something back to those who have invested in it, like the constituents of my hon. Friend

the Member for Perry Barr. Construction money and Government grants have already gone into this scheme. The taxpayers of England and Wales have already spent money. Government investment would have to be paid back. The ownership of the oil, in so far as there is any ownership of it in the United Kingdom, will have to be taken into account and payments made. Halving the depletion rate means halving the jobs in industry—posibly more than that, because they are onshore jobs. Tens of thousands of workers will be thrown out of work tomorrow if the depletion rate is halved. There is a huge hole in the policy of the SNP.
There is, finally, the question of Shetland, because it has shown no sign that it believes in the immoral policy of "Scotland's oil". If the SNP were honest it should be saying that this is Scotland's oil—Shetland and God willing. It is saying that it is prepared to give autonomy to Shetland but will take all of the oil for Scotland. This is imperialism with a vengeance. The SNP should drop this nonsense and tell us where it stands.
I have argued that the project should go on. I regret that it has been done in this way and I hope that we have learned a lesson from this. The land should be owned by the people, particularly those in the Highlands. In that way the planning problems would be solved. The ownership of all development should be vested in the nation. That is the way forward. That is one of the things we have learned from this sorry and unnecessary delay. I ask my hon. Friends, having accepted much of the criticism about the company, to allow this proposition to go forward.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: There are three elements involved in our consideration of this Bill tonight. The first is the acquisition of land, the second is the question of the refinery and the jobs likely to come from it, and the third is the investment of public money. I will deal with them in that order.
I can see no objection to the acquisition of 47 acres when 850 acres have already been acquired. What is happening is that the land is being acquired from one absentee proprietor by a multi-national which in a sense will also be an absentee proprietor but at least one that is


prepared to provide jobs and to invest in the land. [Interruption.] I would be grateful if the hon. Member for Renfrew-shire, West (Mr. Buchan), having regaled us for a quarter of an hour or so with irrelevancies, would kindly be quiet.
On the land question, there is, as I say, an objection, in as much as the acquisition is by an external proprietor, but one hopes that the planning conditions laid down by the Scottish Office will help to redress any weakness which may arise therefrom. In any event, we are dealing with only a minor amount of land, 47 acres, compared to a large area which has already been acquired.
It would have been preferable if the land had been in public ownership and if the Government had leased it to the company on appropriate conditions.

Mr. Wells: The hon. Gentleman says tht it would have been preferable if the land had been in public ownership and the Government had leased it to the company. What is the difference between that and the present landowner leasing it to the company for 99 years, as he has expressed his willingness to do?

Mr. Wilson: I should not necessarily trust the existing landowner to lay down in the lease conditions which would be suitable and give sufficient protection to the public. That is the difference.

Mr. Moate: If the conditions of the lease were subject to independent arbitration or were required by a condition attached to the Bill, would the hon. Gentleman find that acceptable?

Mr. Wilson: No doubt, if other suggestions had been made they would have been considered, but no such suggestion has been made, and I gather from reading the material that has been provided that no lease had been brought to the attention of the Ludwig organisation.

Mr. Wells: That is a half-truth.

Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman says that, but I am dealing with the question of public protection, and where public development of this kind is in issue and, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) says, in many respects the antecedents of the company are in question, it is desirable to have as much protection as possible. I should

not have expected hon. Members on either side to quarrel with that.
I see nothing in principle against acquisition from the private owner by an organisation which intends to start a refinery, especially since there will be compensation paid for the land so acquired.
If that be right, we come next to the question of the refinery itself. I agree with a lot of the comment made about the need for development in the Easter Ross area, an area which has been deliberately built up by Government policy to have an industrial background and industrial infrastructure. It would be of great value to the Highlands if we had a centre of industrial or economic power located there. If this project comes to fruition it will add considerably to job and economic stability in the area. Nevertheless, I do not think that the local residents would be altogether satisfied with the refinery by itself if that were an end of the matter, and it is hoped that the development will lead to something else.
However, I have some questions about the refinery, the type of enterprise which it is to be and the range of refining which will be conducted.

Mr. Ridley: May I take the hon. Gentleman through the calculation? It is suggested that we are to give £78,000 per job. Is he aware that, if that money were invested by each recipient, each of the job seekers could easily have an income of £10,000 a year without doing any work at all? Surely that would make them far better off than they would be by working in the refinery.

Mr. Wilson: I accept that that might be regarded as a form of social credit or dividend payable, but I did not know that the hon. Gentleman, who has espoused many an economic theory in his day, had taken that one up. I shall come to the question of public money later, so I reserve my observations till them.
It would be wrong to consider that this is a refinery or a processor of hydrocarbons which is isolated, because in Scotland at the present time there are developments taking place. The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) is interested in the future of Grange-mouth, and so is the Under-Secretary of State for Energy. There are proposals


for the ammonia plant at Peterhead which, according to reports in the newspapers, seems to be making some progress, and the natural gas liquification plant of Esso and Shell, also in the Peterhead area. It is also reported, without any substantial foundation, that Esso is considering the possibility of an ethylene cracker plant in Scotland. That would be a great step forward, because many petrochemical developments could come from it.
I have my doubts whether this particular type of basic refinery is the most desirable, but, on the other hand, we are not faced with a choice between different types of refinery in Easter Ross. All we have is one specific proposal before us.
There has been a lot of talk about the over-capacity which exists. I was interested in an article in the Petroleum Economist in October this year which said in an article entitled "Search for European Energy Policy":
Last year, the oil refining industry in the Community lost around $7 on every barrel of main products sold. Yet the industry is faced with the need for huge capital investments for the conversion of processing capacities to restore the balance between refining yields and products demand, which has swung in favour of more light products—gasolines and naphtha—at the expense of heavy fuel oils.
It may be argued that this trend favours the establishment of the kind of refinery which is proposed for the Easter Ross area.
The article goes on:
The climate for such investments is not made brighter by an expected continuing overcapacity in relation to foreseen demand into the early 1980s and the prospect of increasing competition from new export refineries in oil-producing countries.
Therefore, it does seem that there is a worldwide trend towards establishing oil refining and petrochemical industries in the countries which are producers of oil. This trend has been followed by a number of the OPEC countries in the Middle East.
There are doubts about whether this refinery will be commercially viable, but the fact remains that this organisation is willing to put up a substantiial amount of its own money. I shall be extremely interested to hear the Under-Secretary's view on viability.
When we come to the question of finance there must be some reservations

in the minds of many hon. Members about whether the public money required—£36 million to £40 million—should be provided, or if it is even necessary. Sometimes we take the view that all industrial activities have to be subsidised. This is a false view. There are many types of industrial activity that do not have to be subsidised and whose return validates the investment. This investment will still take place, even if no Government money is being supplied at all. We should keep uppermost in our minds the fact that companies in the oil business have enormous resources at their disposal, and if they think that there will be a return from having a refinery they will not hesitate to invest the money.
The Minister of State has said that under the Industry Act the Government's hands are tied. We all accept that this is a discretionary grant and the Government do not have to make it, but I understand that the Government have accepted guidelines which suggest that where there is an application made in given circumstances and where a grant was given on a discretionary basis in similar circumstances in the past, those guidelines must be adhered to. The Government therefore do not have a free hand when application is made. If my interpretation is not correct I would welcome a correction from the Minister or from the former Secretary of State for Scotland, the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross).

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Dalyell: If the grant were discretionary some of us would not have been bleating, as I have been for a long time, about the need to have Treasury Ministers and a Treasury statement. Perhaps it would be helpful if I read out an extract from a letter sent to me on 18th October by the Minister of State. Department of Industry, who said:
As to whether these grants represent value for money I can only say that they form part of a complex mix of automatic and selective incentives designed to promote the growth of modern, internationally competitive industry in the assisted areas. Successive Governments have felt it right to devote considerable resources to the incentives, but the financing of the package has, in any case, to compete with the claims of the other programmes you mention in the normal processes for the interdepartmental review of public expenditure.
There is the possibility of the direction automatically of considerable sums well


above £40 million of public money. That is what worries some of us.

Mr. Wilson: I am grateful to the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) for giving that material. I would still, perhaps, require an interpretation of it, because the reference to "automatic and selective" in one breath is not entirely clear.
With these huge projects of, say, £10 million or even £20 million—and here we are talking about £200 million—where, obviously, the grant will mean a considerable investment of public money, there should be a greater degree of flexibility. In other words, in the lower ranges industrialists and others should be able to know, when they put in their application in the usual way, whether they are likely to get a grant. With a massive project like this it would make sense if the application could be made to the Government and if the Government would have the discretion to turn it down or to offer, say, from £10 million to £40 million. If the Government were to give money on that scale they would, of course, have to make not just a crude analysis of how many thousand pounds per job was involved, but also the economic return in terms of output and, in the longer term, to what extent other industry might be attracted by the original investment.
Many of us would feel doubts about the project if it were to absorb a great deal of the industrial development budget for Scotland. The sum of £40 million is equivalent to the annual income of the Scottish Development Agency if one considers that it is £200 million spread over five years. I should like the Government to tell us whether the payment of £40 million would have any major impact on the amount of money available for curing Scotland's serious unemployment.

Mr. Robert Hughes: The hon. Member is arguing from a double standard. He is saying that if the money is paid to a company which is providing jobs and is helping the economy that is in some way detracting from solving the country's economic problem. How can that be logical?

Mr. Wilson: Hon. Members would be concerned if, say, the whole budget of

the SDA were spent on providing 450 jobs when unemployment in Scotland is running at 170,000. I understand that the average amount per job spent on industrial assistance is about £5,000. Yet here we are talking about a sum eight or 10 times as great as that. We must have an assurance on that score.
One of the problems is that we are dealing with a commercial concern the antecedents of which are not too certain. The Government are involved in a major way, and it will be interesting to hear the summing up speeches from the Under-Secretaries of State for Energy and Scotland answering questions that have been put to them in a genuine way. They must answer in detail and not in general.

The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Dr. John A. Cunningham): The most surprising thing about this debate has been the complete misunderstanding by many hon. Members of the nature of the Bill and of my presence at the debate. It is astonshing how many hon. Members have referred to the Government's responsibilities and have asked for replies on issues that are either clearly outside the terms of the Bill or are not the responsibility of my Department.
This is a Private Bill, and it was introduced under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936. It is clearly not a Government Bill. The Secretary of State for Scotland is responsible for the confirmation Bill, but that is the only responsibility of the Scottish Office and the Government have no further responsibility for the drafting, the arrangement of the clauses or any other aspect of the Bill. It is astonishing that so many hon. Members of much longer experience than I have ignored this fact.

Mr. Ridley: Will the Under-Secretary give way?

Dr. Cunningham: No. I have listened to a great deal of the debate. I am not making a winding-up speech; I am merely giving the view of the Department of Energy. Time is short, and other hon. Members wish to speak.

Mr. Ridley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Cunningham: No. I am here because my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) asked my


right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy to see that the views of his Department were expressed in the debate. We agreed that this would be done. As far as I am aware, no other hon. Member approached the Department.

Mr. Rooker: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Dr. Cunningham: No.

Mr. Rooker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I made representations to the Lord President's office and to the Government Chief Whip demanding the presence of Ministers from the Department of Energy and the Treasury. When they all appeared, no one was more pleased than I.

Dr. Cunningham: I said that no other hon. Member had approached the Department of Energy. I do not deny that my hon. Friend approached the Lord President, but no one other than my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian approached us.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian and other hon. Members raised a number of points about the effect of this proposal on the Government's policy towards oil refineries. He mentioned, among other people, Lord Kearton, the Chairman of the BNOC, and also spoke about the commercial decisions of companies. Clearly this is not a matter for the Department of Energy. People make commercial decisions in their own way, in their own time and on the basis of their judgment of the potential in the market. It is surprising how many Opposition Members ignored that fact in their remarks and tried to ascribe to the Government powers which we do not have and in respect of which, if we sought to take them, we should be violently opposed by hon. Gentlemen.
My hon. Friend also mentioned matters raised by the General Secretary of the Transport and General Workers' Union. The questions were asked of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and were taken up in a letter to the company. The company's reply was received, and both letters were published yesterday. Copies are available in the Library as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr Rooker) has rightly said——

Mr. Moate: rose——

Dr. Cunningham: We have been asked to comment on a number of other issues which are clearly not our responsibility. It has been astonishing to listen to a number of hon. Members speaking about environmental matters as though they are the responsibility of the Department when in fact the application was the subject of the longest-running public inquiry in Scottish history. That is a matter of fact. It is not a matter for the Department of Energy. We are here to make a decision on a Private Bill on a free vote. If Opposition Members cannot make up their minds on that basis—clearly many of them have not been able to do so—they should not be in the Chamber speaking for their constituents.
I turn to the responsibilities of my Department. The need for the project has been questioned, the argument being put that there is already a surplus of refinery capacity. That matter was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian along with other hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) asked about our power to control refinery development. In fact, we have that power. It has been taken under the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Act. However, the application referred to in the Bill was made before that Act became law. I should have thought that that was a well-known fact, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the matter so that it can be clarified.
Our present refinery capacity is more than sufficient for our present national demands. It will take some time for the growth in demand to overtake that excess, although that will eventually happen, especially bearing in mind that we expect to be landing all the oil that we need for domestic needs by 1980. That means that there is no overriding case for the refinery in terms of present United Kingdom needs. That was the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) when he was Secretary of State for Scotland. He made that clear in his decision letter following the local planning inquiry.
All the evidence suggests that this is not a project directed mainly to the United Kingdom market. That is clear


in the published correspondence. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy took up this matter specifically in response to inquiries made in the letter written by the Transport and General Workers' Union to which I have already referred.
It is intended that North Sea oil will be used for the bulk of the refinery's throughput. The export of most of the output of high value products on long-term contracts is anticipated. It is also intended to produce substantial quantities of petrochemical feedstock, of which we are currently net importers. This is intended to be mainly an exhort refinery. That removes the worries about an additional product surplus in the United Kingdom market and the effect of that on existing refinery facilities and employment in them.
In his statement of 6th December 1974 on refinery policy, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry, as he now is, drew attention to the advantages of refining North Sea oil in this country before export. He also said that, while we were likely to have enough refinery capacity to meet our own needs in the 1980s, companies might be able to make a case for additional projects to supply export markets—that was in 1974—or to link with pretrochemical developments.
9.30 p.m.
The assurances that the company has given are entirely consistent with this policy. It is clearly unlikely that Cromarty Petroleum would be going ahead with its investment plans if it did not see good market opportunities. The company has undertaken to consult fully the Department and the British National Oil Corporation about its refining and marketing plans. I therefore have no reason for believing that this project will in any way conflict with our own long-term oil interests.
If it goes ahead, the capacity will be available, we understand, in 1980 or 1981. By then we expect to be self-sufficient in oil. The decision to go ahead by the company and its success will rest on the market prospects, and that is a matter on which the sponsors must make their own commercial judgments.

Sir John Gilmour: I was one of the Commissioners who considered this matter. Paragraph 6 of the submission that the Cromarty Petroleum Company has sent to us today states that the merits of the proposals have been endorsed after detailed consideration by Parliamentary Commissioners. I should like to make it clear to hon. Members that all that we were concerned with was whether there should be a compulsory purchase order for this particular bit of land, and we in no way gave any consideration to whether there should be a refinery. That was all that we were asked to do.
It is, therefore, up to the Scottish Office, after overturning a planning inquiry and granting planning permission for this refinery, to show that this is really in the national interest for Scotland. If it can be so shown, undoubtedly it ought to be built.
It is a quirk of how these procedures work out that if the Commissioners had felt able to accede to the request of the proprietor to grant a lease, I think that the objections would have been withdrawn. The Bill would have gone through without any opposition and we could not have had any discussion on it. Hon. Members may feel that some of our procedures might be altered so as to make certain that we can discuss planning permissions which can be overturned after the reporter has made his report.
However, in the light of the fact that the land on which these jetties are to be built will very largely have to be dredged away in order to make the necessary jetties for the large tankers on the outside and for the small tankers on the inside, we felt that it was not a practical proposition that there should be a lease of this land. We therefore concurred with the compulsory purchase order. It was only for that reason that certainly I, as a Commissioner, came to that view, and this was the opinion formed by the majority of the Commission.

Mr. Dalyell: When the hon. Gentleman was doing this work in Edinburgh on behalf of Parliament, did he feel entirely comfortable that his limits were so narrowly defined? On reflection and with hindsight, does he think that this kind of very narrow inquiry is the right


way of tackling this extremely complex problem?

Sir J. Gilmour: This is a matter that bears examination and argument. On the other hand, it would be very difficult for Parliament to agree to put the powers into the hands of the Secretary of State to take a planning decision, and, after he had taken it, to say "We are sorry but we shall not agree to it", and then to reverse it. One of the things that people say about how we can help industry most is "Let us not have industrial disorder. Let us get on with the job and let us say what people may or may not do."
It would be easy for Parliament to take the power to override a planning decision taken by a Secretary of State.
I hope, therefore, that, after due consideration, if we get a proper explanation of the necessity for the building of the refinery, the order will be confirmed.

Mr. William Ross: I am the cause of all the trouble. If I had turned down the application made by Ross and Cromarty County Council to grant planning permission to the company, this debate would never have taken place. Had I done that, there would have been a much louder noise and many more people would have asked why I had refused to let a project go ahead that would produce about 400 jobs in a part of Scotland that we had singled out for future industrial development.
I am surprised to hear hon. Members pretending that we should be discussing something other than what we are discussing, which technically is 47½ acres of land. All the rest of the land has been bought, but one absentee landowner, for reasons best known to himself, said "No".

Mr. Peter Rost: It is his land.

Mr. Ross: But he is prepared to lease the land for 99 years or take a share in the action. In other words, he wants out of it as much as he can get.

Mr. Wells: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ross: I am sorry, I have a limited amount of time. The hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Wells) has spoken. I heard his speech on a previous occasion and I did not interrupt him.
Not long ago the Conservative Government introduced a Bill to get rid of the long leases which cause trouble in Scotland and to enable people with long leases to turn them into feu tenure. That is quite alien to Scottish tradition. I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) was concerned about the proprietor, although he would probably be much more appreciative if the Highlands and Islands Development Board had taken over the land.
New powers have come to local authorities, and the same is true in relation to refining capacity. The application came to us before we had powers for the proper planning of refining capacity either in Scotland or elsewhere. I wonder how many hon. Members voted against that Bill. The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) might reflect on that.
An hon. Member representing an English constituency voiced concern about conservation. I do not know whether he knows this area of land. I was there about a month ago, when I saw members of the Highlands and Islands Development Board, and they supported the project. This is not a mountainous area; far from it. Highland Fabricators is already there, pipe-coating is done in the area and there is an aluminium smelter. The people who put the environment first today are the people who put forward the same views in discussions on those projects.
In discussion after discussion, inquiry after inquiry and project planning after project planning, it was decided that this was the area in which we should be able to begin to transform the Highlands. We are fortunate in that oil gives us another chance to do that.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State was wrong in saying that the inquiry on this project was the longest inquiry there had ever been. He has never heard of Drumbuie. It was not Drambuie, but Drumbuie. That name is written in the heart of the former Secretary of State for Scotland, who is now in another place. That inquiry went on and on and it eventually came to me to make the decision.
The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty knows very well that I made the right decision on environmental grounds. I have never been one to ignore the environmental aspects of Scotland. At


the same time, I had not the slightest doubt at all that Drumbuie was absolutely vital, and that was admitted by the reporter. I think that the language that was used was that the environmental difficulties were not insurmountable. It came down to the question of the national need for oil.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Energy has given the right answer. In December 1974 we had, for the first time, a policy outlined by the then Minister in respect of refining. One of the things he made clear was that we would appear to have an adequate capacity up to about 1980. He said that, consistent with the policy of the particular company, it might be commercially desirable and it might not conflict with a policy for further capacity which might be related to exports.
The question of the number of jobs was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr. He seemed to think there was some mistake in the letter that I carefully wrote and read. The one thing that there must not be in a decision letter is any conflict or mistake of that kind, because it could throw blight over any decision which is reached. In any planning letter, one should rest upon the facts which have been brought out in the inquiry and which have been agreed by both sides. The figure of 400 jobs was one which was agreed and accepted at that time. Let there be no doubt about that. Four hundred jobs in the area means an awful lot in addition to the 1,800 jobs in relation to construction.
The other point was the question of cost per job. What surprised me was that the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) realised that at one time there was an industrial policy in this country for regional development. A direct relationship was laid down between the cost and the number of jobs. There was a relationship of cost per job. It was not inflexible and it was probably higher in the Highlands area than anywhere else. However, that was wiped out by the 1972 Act.
I did not know that the hon. Gentleman was in the Government at that time. By that time he had decided to depart—or the Prime Minister had decided that they would be better without him. I think

that the hon. Gentleman had a bit of gall even to mention Clydeside tonight—him of all people mentioning Clydeside. That was the cause of his departure. He must remember the phrase "butchering UCS" He was the man who was ruthlessly prepared to create unemployment in the Clyde. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to believe what he said, but he has to live with it as far as Scotland is concerned. Some of his hon. Friends also have to live with it.

Mr. Ridley: I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that Upper Clyde Shipbuilders—now Govan Shipyards)—has actually lost nearly £50 million since that time. Has he thought whether more gainful and secure employment could have been provided on Clydeside by that sum of money?

Mr. Ross: It comes to the same thing. If one had not gone ahead with that project, would one have spent this money in the Highlands? Of course not.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) suggested that this money was coming from the SDA. I am surprised.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I did not suggest that.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman did. I took his words down. It has nothing to do with the SDA. It has nothing to do with a discretionary grant. It was an automatic grant under the 1972 Act.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: If the right hon. Gentleman studies Hansard tomorrow, he will find that I said it was equivalent to the annual budget of the SDA, which would have been £40 million.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman seemed to think that this was from a limited sum of money which was available for Scottish development and that by spending it there it could not be spent elsewhere. I suggest that he is quite wrong. It is an automatic grant.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned a Shell project and some other projects. Shell projects have been mentioned in connection with constituencies south of the border. They get an automatic 20 per cent. capital grant if they are in development areas. I can take the hon. Gentleman to chemical developments which


cost millions but employ only a handful of people.
It is right that my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Bar should raise the question of whether these grants should be automatic or discretionary. But we must live in this world. My hon. Friend has every right to make a speech on this matter. I would defend his right. I used to make speeches on English matters, and the English did not worry about me. It may be that they could not understand what I was saying. But my hon. Friend made a very good speech on this matter.
I recall that the ex-Leader of the Opposition used to make points about these grants, and they have been referred to by the STUC. But this matter is now within an Act of Parliament. Grants have been made for different developments. Therefore, we would be wrong to use this argument as a justification for voting against the Bill.

Mr. Gray: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you could give us some guidance on this matter. This is probably one of the most important matters which has had to be decided since the war affecting my constituency. I should like to participate in the debate, and I know that a number of my hon. Friends also wish to take part. It is obvious that we shall not finish before 10 o'clock. Indeed, I apologise for interrupting the very interesting speech by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). Could you, however, tell us whether it is correct that the Government have indicated their willingness to give further time for this debate in the very near future?

Mr. Speaker: That will be a matter for the Chairman of Ways and Means, who will no doubt consult the usual channels about a further date if we do not reach a decision tonight. I am sure that that is the course that will be followed.

Mr. Ross: I shall finish in exactly one minute. I want to hear the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty, who has to live with this situation. I know the feeling of the people in his constituency. They want this project to go ahead. The local authorities, the STUC,

the local Labour Party and the constituency Labour Party want it. I, too, want to see this project go ahead. I hope that hon. Members will have second thoughts and allow it to go ahead.

Mr. Gray: This has been an interesting debate, and I do not think that anybody who supports the project would complain about the length of it.
Although there has been a great deal of sniping tonight, I believe that the company has nothing to hide. I have made exhaustive invesigations about the activities of the company. It has proved to me that many of the rumours and suggestions that have been made are without foundation.
It is interesting that since we debated this subject on Second Reading considerable public interest has been aroused. I am of the opinion, rightly or wrongly, that a considerable amount of this public interest has been stimulated by one of the major national oil companies—British Petroleum. I suppose that the company is absolutely entitled to have its say, but if I had anything to do with the Ludwig organisation and I had any doubt about the viability of the project it would certainly be removed by the activities of the British Petroleum Company.

Mr. Moate: I hope that my hon. Friend is not suggesting that any of his hon. Friends have been influenced in their opposition at this stage by British Petroleum.

Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend must not misrepresent what I have said. I can see that I have hit a sore spot. I clearly said that the British Petroleum Company was perfectly entitled to its views and to stick to them, but that I was sure that this would do more to convince the scheme's promoters of its viability than anything else.
The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) declared an interest in the subject. He told us that he has had discussions with BP and that he is worried about the future of his constituents, although I am sure that he has no need to worry. Those who oppose the Bill on the ground of jobs cannot have it both ways. We are told that the company is making exaggerated claims about jobs, and that the number of jobs involved is too small.


I do not suggest that any of my hon. Friends would be influenced in their judgment of this matter by the activities of a national oil company. I have the greatest possible regard for the way in which BP has carried out its activities in the exploration of the Forties field. In Mr. Matt Linning, it probably has one of the finest of the oil generation in this country. Nevertheless, its activties in this regard are questionable and mistaken.
On 1st September 1976 an article in The Times was headed:
BP renews attack on project to build refinery at Nigg Bay".
The article said that Mr. Monty Pennell, BP's deputy chairman, stated in a letter to a Scottish hon. Member that he had considerable doubts about the project. The article stated that
His letter to Mr. Tam Dalyell, Labour MP for West Lothian and an opponent of the plan for a £100 million refinery at Nigg, has been forwarded to Mr. Benn".
Large and powerful as BP is, it does not have a monopoly of forward planning. Some of the criticisms were picked up by Professor Ian Fells, the Professor of Energy Conservation, Department of Chemical Engineering, at the University of Newcastle. Referring to BP directives he said that he could only conclude that BP had got its forward planning seriously wrong some years ago. He went on:
This means the consumer is paying for the mistake of over-provision and the chemical engineering contracting industry can gloomily anticipate another ever deeper trough in orders. … Of course, BP may subscribe to the ' no growth' lobby in which case their objection makes sense. But if they do they should come clean and say so.
I thought that that was a very fair article, and the sentiment was echoed by yet another acknowledged authority in oil planning in Scotland. On 12th October, the Aberdeen Press and Journal carried the headline,
Economist raps bogus refinery argument.
It referred not to the hon. Member for West Lothian or to any others who objected; it referred to the sort of arguments that were being deployed by people within the industry who really should have known better. I quote briefly from what Professor MacKay, late of the University of Aberdeen and now of Heriot-Watt University, said:

It is not without note that one of the major opponents of the Nigg Refinery is BP. It should not be part of our economic policy to say that because there is excess capacity in an industry we should not allow competition.
That, quite simply, is getting at BP again. Later he said:
I would back the company's commercial judgment against the Government's any day.
However, in this case the Government's commercial judgment and that of the company seem to agree, so I think that it is a pretty strong case.
I turn now to the problem of refinery capacity. This is a matter that has been argued from a number of sources. Although existing refinery capacity is adequate at the moment, there is no guarantee that there will be, in effect, all that we require in the early 1980s. This company, which proposes to build its refinery at Nigg Bay, has announced that it will not be operational until the early 1980s. It is to be a new refinery. The number of jobs appears to be in question, but I do not think that the actual number of jobs involved at this stage is all that important.
I say with all sincerity to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) that he does not know the area. I know the area very well. I was born and brought up in the Highlands. I saw most of my friends having to go south. Some of them possibly went to the hon. Gentleman's part of the country. They had to go, for the simple reason that work was not available. For the first time this century, in the Highlands of Scotland we have the chance of creating a complex that will provide continuing employment enabling people to live and to stay there, with the result that their families will not have to move away.
I suggest to the hon. Member for Perry Barr that probably in innocence—I do not think that there is any malice aforethought on his part—by his action he has put at risk a development of £150 million or £160 million. That is what the hon. Gentleman is doing.

Mr. Rooker: No.

Mr. Gray: As Members of Parliament, we criticise the lack of investment, yet, when we have someone who is prepared to make this kind of investment in a part of Scotland which vitally needs


it, we raise every conceivable issue to try to prevent it happening.

Mr. Rooker: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he believes that this Bill should have passed through the House without a debate?

Mr. Gray: It may be that the hon. Member for Perry Barr was not here when I began my speech. I said that the debate had been very useful. Certainly I do not suggest that the Bill should pass through the House without debate. I am suggesting that questions have been asked and that I believe that answers have been given. It is wrong of people to try to block a project of this

nature for reasons which perhaps are not obvious to us all.
Time is running out. I hope that I may be able to continue at a future date.

Mr. Wells: This debate has been a useful—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Monday

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Energy Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Coleman.]

Orders of the Day — ENERGY BILL [Lords]

Postponed proceeding on consideration of the Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), resumed.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 4

REPEALS AND SAVINGS

Mr. Norman Fowler: As I was saying in moving Amendment No. 47, the debate is exploratory. We have 50 m.p.h. and 60 m.p.h. so-called temporary speed limits, introduced as a fuel economy measure in 1974. They were renewed in 1975 and they come up for further renewal, if that is the Government's decision, in about four weeks' time.
The effect of the Act with which we are dealing is, I understand, not to renew those limits but to give the Government power to make speed limit orders on fuel economy grounds, but if the Government want to continue with the limits they must come back to the House for renewal. When I say "come back", let us be clear exactly what that means. The procedure is by negative resolution. Last year the Government renewed these limits but allowed the House only 12 minutes' debate. The debate was adjourned in December and was never resumed, in spite of all requests.
The Government behaved in a discreditable and shabby manner. Thousands of motorists have been prosecuted under this law, yet Parliament was refused any effective means of challenging or questioning the proposals. That is not treatment that the Government would have attempted in any other part of the criminal law. With the motorist their attitude seems to be that anything goes.
That is in the past. It gives me no great confidence in the Government's future actions. Before we can judge whether the powers which are the subject of the amendment are necessary, we must know the Government's plans. The 50 m.p.h. and 60 m.p.h. limits will lapse at the end of the next month unless the Government move to continue them. The Government must already have made up their mind whether they intend to go

ahead with them. The House, having a rare opportunity to debate the question, will want to know what decision has been made by the Department of Transport.
I should like to say why I believe that these limits should be scrapped. First, they lead to uncertainty and confusion. There is now a plethora of speed limits—30 m.p.h., 40 m.p.h., 50 m.p.h., 60 m.p.h. and 70 m.p.h. By any standard there are too many. What is worse, two of them—the 50 m.p.h. and 60 m.p.h. limits—are unmarked. Although the legal position has changed, no signs mark that change.
Motorists on relatively short journeys can travel through a bewildering number of different speed limits when those changes are unmarked. That breaks the golden rule that every effort must be made to make the motorist aware of the law. Certainly the motorist in the United States is made aware of the situation, because in that country a general 55 m.p.h. limit operates. At least the motorist knows the position. The limit in the United States has been not only marked but extensively advertised on television and in the Press. However, in the United Kingdom the Government have not attempted to get the message across. Frankly, their position is that they do not give a damn for the motorist. Nevertheless, let them reflect that a law that leads to genuine confusion is bad law—and our present system amounts to just that.
I have no sympathy for the motorist who flagrantly ignores speed limits—and such people certainly exist in the total number of prosecutions. In the last two years, no fewer than 25,000 motorists have been prosecuted for failing to observe unmarked 50- or 60-mph limits, and many feel a great sense of injustice. It should be an unwavering principle that the law should not only be fair but should be seen to be fair.
Generally, relations between the police and the public are exceptionally good, and the Government should aim to maintain that situation. Let them not forget the point made by the Willink Committee on the police in 1962 that one of the most critical areas to consider is the relationship between the police and the motorist. If that relationship is wrong, a great deal of the relationship between the police and the public in general will be wrong.
The 50- and 60-mph limits are justified on the ground that they are fuel-economy measures. Indeed, that is why they appear in the Energy Bill. How much fuel do the Government estimate is being saved by these limits? To date, the Government have been remarkably unforthcoming on this matter, but the fuel-saving aspect is the whole justification for these provisions. If the Government cannot give reliable information on the savings, an already crumbling case will collapse into ruins.
The Government, when pressed, sometimes justify the measure on grounds of road safety. As a transport spokesman, I regard that argument as important, but I wish to know the evidence. However, that does not affect our main case—namely, that the law should be simpler. If the Government want to argue on road safety grounds, let them come forward with the evidence, and certainly with a much simpler procedure than the present one.
There is strong public feeling on this matter. The motoring magazine Autocar has campaigned strongly and vigorously, and I pay full tribute to that journal for its efforts. We all know from the many petitions that have been presented to Parliament that many motorists feel very strongly about this matter. For far too long the Government have ducked a debate. They can do so no longer. Renewal of these powers will come before the Department of Transport during the next few weeks, and at this stage the Government must know their plan. We shall regard it as totally unsatisfactory if the Government's reply this evening is simply to the effect that they are still considering the subject.
The time has come for the Government to come clean on this issue. They have a shabby record. If the Minister does not believe it, I suggest that he reads the history of this matter. I hope that the Minister can at least do something partly to redeem that record.

Mr. Alan Clark: The whole House, indeed the whole country, is familiar with the atmosphere of torpor and congestion that generally pervades the roads following the introduction of these two temporary speed limits. Yet the curious anomaly persists

that, although these limits were introduced for one reason, their retention is defended for a totally different reason. They were introduced, we were told, to save fuel, as part of some window-dressing exercise at the time of the energy crisis. It presumably looked good, and perhaps it was part of the habitual practice which occurs at times of crisis to try to impress our creditors.
Even at that time, it was admitted that it would save only a fraction of a fraction of the fuel costs. Since then, as has been said, 25,000 people have been prosecuted. But the reason for retaining the limits has shifted from that of saving energy to that of preventing accidents. Yet there is no statistical evidence to show that accidents are prevented by this expedient.
Leaving aside the curious practice of defending a measure on grounds totally separate from those that were originally put forward for its introduction, there is a total absence of any statistical evidence, other than of the simplest kind, relating the total number of accidents to previous years. This ignores the number of vehicles on the roads and the fact that the increased cost of petrol probably means that people use their cars less. Accidents are a function of total mileage, and it seems probable that people are doing, on average, a smaller mileage. The statistics are suspect in the general way in which they have been presented.
Another reason sometimes produced, one which was given to me by the former Transport Minister in reply to a Question, is "In any case, most motorists observe the limits". That is hardly surprising when we consider the heavy penalties to which they are subjected. If a motorist's licence is endorsed three times in three years for exceeding the speed limit, it is taken away. The House will agree that one of the heaviest penalties which an otherwise law-abiding citizen can pay is to be deprived of the means of getting to and from work, enjoying his leisure and taking out his family. When this is simply for having infringed a largely bogus measure it is an enormous penalty.
The argument that everyone observes the limits and, therefore, those limits can be kept because people are accepting them is highly specious. Psychiatrists tell us that people exceed the speed limit because they have a super-abundance of


male hormones, or some such fashionable argument. To those who contend that motorists are observing the limits, it can be said that if the speed limit was reduced to 20 m.p.h. and was enforced—if you will forgive a certain medical crudity, Mr. Deputy Speaker—by the castration on the spot of those exceeding it, it is possible that the deterrent effect would mean that there would be no accidents at all. It could be said "What a splendid measure this is".

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that nearly all motorists suffer from a disease known as the "malady of supposed urgency?"

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Clark: I suppose that the idea of the malady of supposed urgency has some substance at times, but I cannot accept that it should be associated with penalties of such severity as are attached to these statutory requirements. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) said, the requirements are not accompanied by warning signs. People put their driving licences on the line, without any means of knowing the sort of circumstances in which they are likely to be apprehended.
Moreover, as always happens with the introduction of legislation of this kind, much money is spent to make it even easier to apprehend law-breakers. Anyone who drives on a motorway sees the raised lay-bys marked "Police vehicles only" all over the country. Who pays for them—the central Exchequer or the local authority? Somebody has paid for them.

Mr. Peter Viggers: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Secretary of State for Transport were present it might be possible to address these questions with some hope of answer?

The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): My hon. Friend and I are here to give answers.

Mr. Clark: I hear what the Minister says, but my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) made an important point. As I recall it, on the last occasion this subject was discussed in the House the Secretary of State's predecessor was present but the total time then available to the House was about nine minutes. On this occasion, I do not know whether

hon. Members on either side think it satisfactory that a Minister in charge of an entirely different Department claims that he is empowered to give answers. We shall see what answers he gives, but it remains unsatisfactory that we are compelled to consider this question in depth on an occasion of this kind.
I was speaking about expenditure. Additional expense has been incurred in installing comprehensive radar equipment in police cars solely for the purpose of measuring the speed of motor cars, and, be it noted, motor cars travelling in a straight line. It cannot be done when a motorist is executing a dangerous manoeuvre or going round a corner, for example. The speed can be measured only when vehicles are travelling in a straight line. I doubt that the putative saving in fuel costs is as great as the extra expenditure on the various items of equipment, structural modifications alongside motorways and the rest.
I am sure that all my hon. Friends agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield when he suggests that this is all part of the Government's congenital nature, in that they seek to regiment every kind of private activity. Here is a wonderful opportunity for them. They can pretend that it has something to do with saving fuel, and they then bring in not one but three different categories of restriction on people without giving them the means of knowing at any given moment the sort of restriction to which they are subject. I know that there is a distinction between dual-carriageway and single-carriageway roads, but this distinction can be blurred, depending upon whether the two carriageways are separated by a continuous strip of paving, a grass strip or white lines of varying width.
In my view, the Government welcome these restrictions because they welcome anything of this kind which is unclear, since one can then always find in favour of the central authority which seeks to regiment individual citizens. One of the means which gives independence, a certain unpredictability and an entrée into the world of material possessions is the motor car, and to this the Government have always objected most. They approve of people who make motor cars—we all know about that—but those who possess and use motor cars have been


victimised by all kinds of petty legislation. This may relate to seat belts, to dazzling them with headlights at night or to paying more for the MOT test.
There are endless varities of petty niggling laws which are being imposed on the motorist. They are not being imposed in the interests of road safety or of energy conservation. Such arguments are spurious. Their real purpose is to regiment the motorist, and we are determined to lift this burden from his shoulders.

Mr. Peter Rost: In my view, the speed limits of 50 and 60 m.p.h. have become counterproductive in terms of energy conservation. I would be the first to support them if it could be shown that it was sensible to put them on a compulsory basis and if it could be proved that the limits were making a useful contribution to energy conservation, but this is not so. I believe that people are anxious to conserve fuel themselves by better motoring practice and that they are prepared to discipline themselves simply because of the market price of petrol. This is a far better discipline and incentive than a restrictive measure which only adds to the difficulties of enforcement and involves extra costs. It also antagonises a large section of the community against a bureaucracy which seems to be insensitive to the real needs of the situation.
I hope that the Government will accept that the time has come to abandon these particular restrictions. I hope that they will use part of their publicity and promotion campaign as well as their energy-saving campaign to advise those motorists—only a small minority who need reminding from time to time—how much money they can save on fuel by sensible driving practices, including voluntary restraint in the use of the accelerator. This would be far more sensible and would ensure far more co-operation from the public and less antagonism towards the police and bureaucracy, as well as making a far more valuable contribution to energy saving.
On the question of penalties I think it is quite immoral—not merely unfair, but downright immoral—that penalties should be imposed which lead to the cancellation of the right to drive a vehicle

after three offences which have nothing to do with driving dangerously or endangering the public. If one were fined for speeding and prosecuted for dangerous driving, there would be every justification for eventually having one's licence removed, but to be fined in the interests of energy conservation for exceeding an arbitrary speed limit should not be an offence of the same weight as that of endangering the public. There is an important moral distinction here.

Mr. Viggers: I am not proud to make this speech. I have an interest to declare which is known, no doubt, to the magistrates at Petersfield in Hampshire. I was convicted of exceeding the 50-mph speed limit.
This subject has nothing whatever to do with party politics. If we on this side were in power, I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) would be defending this measure from the Government Benches against attacks by the Labour Party. This is an example of the torpor of Government. We saw it with the Drought Bill, when the country baked and roasted and nothing happened until the drought became obvious even to civil servants and the Government. The impositions were then put on. When the floods came, the Government did nothing and the Minister with responsibility in the matter travelled around the West Country turning on standpipes in flood conditions.
We now face a similar situation. The energy crisis caused the imposition of speed limits which the Government have failed to remove. They should do so now. The only argument in favour of the limits is fuel saving. They may be defended on the basis of road safety, but that is not why they were imposed originally. The saving of fuel is not sufficient cause for maintaining the limits, for one overwhelming reason.
I give you my word, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I trust you will accept it, that I did not know when I was charged with exceeding 50 mph that the limits were still in force. As a lawyer and a Member of Parliament, I ought to have known——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): I do not know whether the


hon. Member is asking me to accept or reject his lack of knowledge on these matters, but what he has just told us is characteristic of lawyers.

Mr. Viggers: I am almost silenced by your witty intervention, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I did not know that the limits were still in force. If I did not know, how could the 2 million people in this country who are incapable of reading understand that the limits are still in force? I put it to the Government that the uncertainty of the present position is so great that there must be vast numbers among the 25,000 people found guilty of motoring offences who had no idea that they were guilty of an offence.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield made an important point when he said that it was vital for the police not to be exposed to a situation in which they were charging persons who were innocent of intent. If I did not know that the speed limits were in force, how on earth could the "man on the Clapham omnibus" know?

Mr. Alan Clark: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would not wish it to be thought that I was concealing an interest, and, therefore, I too should declare convictions in the past and prosecutions pending.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has made that submission to the House. I can assure him that he will not be castrated.

Mr. Jerry Wiggin: Is it necessary to declare one's bills, past or present, in this House, Mr. Deputy Speaker? I do not consider a fine to be an interest in this matter.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If one has been fined, it is helpful to declare that fact.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Wiggin: In that case I, too, must declare that I have an endorsement on my licence for speeding with a trailer.
We often hear comments from constituents and others that the value of this House is constantly being debased. I find it appalling and astonishing that such an important matter, which affects millions of people, should be debated in this way, late on a Thursday when both

sides of the House know that the rest of the business is not sufficiently controversial to require a full attendance. This is not the first time that this situation has occurred. The order was dismissed in nine minutes on the last occasion when it was brought before the House.
Apparently there was not time to debate the seat belts Bill last week, yet we found time to discuss the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill and next week we shall be considering a Bill dealing with endangered species. It is appalling that matters of life and limb, commerce and transport and the lifeblood of the nation should be debated in this way.
If we are to prevent this House becoming a butt and a mockery to the nation, we must complain when the Government's business managers bring on this sort of thing at this hour.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The matter was not brought on at this time of night. It started as the main business this afternoon.

Mr. Wiggin: With due respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it happens to be on at this time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman said that it was brought on at this time.

Mr. Wiggin: I am not going to argue with you about the semantics, Mr. Deputy Speaker—it is too late to do that—but I regard it as an insult to the nation that we should be dealing with something of such vast importance in such a way. Its introduction into an Energy Bill when it ought to be in a transport Bill is the root cause of our problems.
As far as I am aware, no other limitation of speed has been brought in by any measure other than a Road Traffic Act or its equivalent.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: Not so.

Mr. Wiggin: I hope that the Minister or his colleague will put me right if I am mistaken, although I object to having an Energy Minister replying to the debate. The Secretary of State for Transport should be here. His predecessor attended the Finance Bill Committee when we discussed cherished number plates and, although he regretted having


done so, he considered it his responsibility to deal with that part of the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that tonight we should deal with the amendment which is before us.

Mr. Wiggin: I am dealing with it, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It refers to speed limits. It is rational that we should have proper evidence of the savings produced by this measure in terms of gallons and lives—if that is to become an argument.
The Transport and Road Research Laboratory, the police and other responsible people will argue that a 50 m.p.h. limit—and we should remember that only seven years ago there was no limit on our main roads—is correct. If one pursues their argument a little further, however, limits of 40, 30 or even 20 m.p.h. would be correct because the lower the limit, the greater the saving of life. Unhappily, we have to accept some penalty for being able to transport ourselves conveniently and rapidly, and that penalty is the tragic and mounting toll of road traffic casualties.
The fact that the Government turned their back on the simplest and easiest way of stopping the casualties by introducing the compulsory wearing of seat belts is entirely their own fault.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: It was a House of Commons decision.

Mr. Wiggin: It has nothing to do with the decisions of the House. The Government brought in a measure and they did not back it. They brought it on at strange times and on different days.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not discussing the seat belt measure.

Mr. Wiggin: I was discussing casualties. I understand that this limitation is argued by many authorities as a means of reducing casualties. Many other countries have speed limits of this sort, but they do not argue them on the ground of energy saving. They are argued on the ground of saving life. Surely we cannot have a sensible debate if we do not introduce that aspect. I sincerely hope that the Minister will mention it. It must be relevant. It is a factor that I shall consider before deciding how to respond to the amendment. It is surely

connected with the way in which lifesaving measures and transport measures are being handled.
Another point about the 50-mph general speed limit on roads other than motorways and dual carriageways is the conflict that the ordinary motorist will have with the police. I do not want to enter into an argument about whether the police should have to deal with all traffic offences, although I know that they wish to keep the right to do so, but the fact remains that at every corner of every reasonable "B" road at every hour there will be dozens of cars breaking the 50-mph speed limit. It is not difficult now for a police patrol car to position itself at a corner and catch a rash of offenders in a fairly short time. That can be done by officers sitting in a patrol car only a few miles from their base. I know for certain that any police officer who is experienced in these matters would agree.
It is no good passing legislation that the average members of our population will not willingly obey. Certainly they will not willingly obey the 50-mph speed limit—[Interruption.] I did not catch what the Minister of State said from a sedentary position. Does he wish me to give way?

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: I have been provoked into dealing with this matter. This provision arises from the legislation that the Conservative Government introduced in 1973. We are seeking to continue it for a very short time so that we can get all the statistics for which the hon. Gentleman asks. The hon. Gentleman cannot make these assertions without proving what lie is saying by producing statistics, and he has not done so. He should be reasonable and allow the amendment to be accepted. In six months' time we shall review the whole matter.

Mr. Wiggin: I utterly reject that argument although I can understand why the hon. Gentleman wishes to use it. We are sent here by constituents to represent their viewpoint. I do not claim to be the great oracle in reading the views of my constituents, but I know that they do not react favourably to a 50-mph limit. I know that they are breaking it by the dozen every hour of the day. I do not think that any Member now present in the Chamber—unhappily, there are only a few of us here—would deny that.
I do not wish to be a party to passing laws that the majority of the population does not and will not obey. If the hon. Gentleman is truly serious about fuel economy—the fact is that the Government are not really serious about petrol economy—he knows that there is a vast bureaucratic machine for dealing with the matter. For example, there were petrol coupons that were issued but never used. If the Government are so serious, why did they not use them? It seems that expense was incurred for no purpose. I find the Government's argument totally fragile and transparent.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) referred to penalties for motoring offences, and especially to exceeding the speed limits. One of the offences that attract an automatic endorsement is parking a certain number of yards from traffic lights. There are many people who collect an endorsement for what is really a parking offence. The Government are now seeking permission to bring in a speed limit which, I suggest, the vast majority of motorists will not obey. People do not go out thinking that they will commit a crime when they commit a motoring offence. It is not an offence in the true historical sense of "offence" or "crime".
The Member is now delving into an area that is not normally part of his Department's responsibilities. He must accept that, when the Bill goes through, he will have brought suddenly into his field a whole new world with which his Department is not equipped to deal and upon which it has no authorisation. I for one would not wish to rely upon its advice.
I hope that the question of speed will be dealt with in the hon. Gentleman's reply to the debate. I do not think that the right way to deal with road speed is to constrain people to the point at which frustration and impatience build up. Those of use who drive many miles a year—unhappily, I do—know that it is the personality behind the wheel that matters in road safety. It is the very constraints imposed by the law that are often dangerous. Indeed, I sometimes wonder whether the constant watching of one's mirror on a motorway does not cause as many accidents as lifting the limit from 70 mph to 80 mph or 85 mph,

which would be a more comfortable speed for the modern motor car.
Road traffic laws are already far too complex. To impose by statute speed limits of 30, 40, 50, 60 and 70 miles per hour, which is what in effect the order will produce, is to impose too many. A great step forward in road safety would be made if a more rational approach to the whole question of speed limits were introduced. I am not saying that with that there might not be a great increase in fines. It is extremely important that if we have speed limits they should be adhered to. The margin established with police forces is now well known to motorists. That margin allows people to break the law knowing that perhaps they will not be prosecuted.
Here is an area in which the Government should be totally constructive instead of proposing what is, in truth, a road safety measure in the guise of an Energy Bill and doing it without the necessary evidence.

The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Dr. John A. Cunningham): Whatever else we should or should not consider, it is clear that we should not have any debates at this time of night on any subject, judging by some of the speeches we have heard recently. We reject entirely the rather childish allegations that in some way the present Government have a down on motorists and that we either seek to hedge them about with petty restrictions and delight in people breaking the law, or are engaged in setting limits which we know will upset or frustrate people. All of that is nonsense, and it has no place in a rational debate in the House of Commons.
We have had a great deal of breast beating and revelation from Opposition Members. They have made it clear that, whatever people may be doing up and down the country in response to the existing speed limits, Conservative Members do not have a very good idea of the Road Traffic Acts or a very good ability to stay within present speed limits. That is a matter for them. I am delighted that we have not had a similar response from Labour Members.

Mr. Alan Clark: Will the Minister give way?

Dr. Cunningham: I am intent on responding to the speeches in the debate and some of the wild allegations. [Interruption.]. The Opposition spokesman says "What a nasty speech." I am replying to the kind of allegation that has been made by his colleagues and himself. If that is nasty, he should have thought about that before he set the tone for the debate.

Mr. Norman Fowler: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? Surely he will.

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) has been a Member of the House long enough to know that if a Minister, or any other hon. Member, does not give way, he does not give way.

Dr. Cunningham: We have been criticised for another error of fact, and we have been blamed for the subject being debated at this time of night. That clearly is not so, as you yourself pointed out, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
10.45 p.m.
Another error of fact, which I had better get out of the way, relates to the seat belts legislation. There was a free vote of the House on that Bill, as there has been in the past. The Government can hardly be blamed, whatever the outcome on that. Indeed, most people would agree that it was right that such a matter should be the subject of a free vote.

Mr. Wiggin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Cunningham: I am bound to say that I welcomed—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Dr. Cunningham.

Mr. Wiggin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Dr. Cunningham: I welcomed the speeches and the general tenor of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) and the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers). They were in marked contrast to some of the other speeches we have heard tonight.
One thing on which I can agree with the Conservative Front Bench is that the

purpose of the provision is to continue permanently the enabling power under which speed limits, for the purpose of saving fuel, were fixed. That will not by itself make speed limits permanent. The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) asked me to clear that point up. I willingly do so. We are at one with him on this matter.
Regarding the effect of the amendment, it would prevent the preservation of the Fuel Control (Modification of Enactments) (Speed Limits) Order 1973. That was introduced by the Conservative administration. That order was made under the Fuel and Electricity (Control) Act 1973. The present Bill provides for the repeal of that 1973 Act. Therefore, unless the order as such is continued under this Bill, it will lapse as soon as the 1973 Act is repealed. I think that that has entirely cleared up that point. The House will recall that the order was made during the 1973–74 energy emergency. It is an enabling order giving powers to make specific speed limit orders for fuel-saving purposes. These provisions have been continued since that time. The general limit of 50 m.p.h. was ended at the end of the emergency. Subsequently this Modification of Enactments Order also enabled the making of the order of December 1974 setting a 60 m.p.h. speed limit on dual carriageways other than motorways and a 50 m.p.h. limit on other roads.
When the regulations were introduced in December 1974, it was on the basis that excessive speed wasted petrol, as well as costing lives. The limits were an assessment of what should be done having regard to fuel saving and safety. As both sides of the House have agreed, we should still be doing all we can in this country to conserve petrol and reduce our oil import bill.
I agree that the limits we have are broadly similar to limits which obtain in other countries in the Western world. However, it is true that there have been vigorous representations against the use of speed limits, on grounds both of safety and of conserving energy. I do not dissociate myself from the points which have been made in that respect.
We believe that people should be in absolutely no doubt that there have been considerable protests of that nature. I hope that the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield will be pleased—in spite of his


displeasure at my earlier remarks—that we therefore accept there should now be a careful reassessment of the position and of the usefulness and acceptability of the present limits.

Mr. Viggers: May I ask why consideration was not given to the subject before?

Dr. Cunningham: Consideration was not given to the subject before because the proceedings were terminated very rapidly after the subject came on for discussion in the House.
My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Energy and the Secretary of State for Transport agree that there should be a public discussion of the evidence, the pros and cons and all the arguments before a final decision is taken. We accept that it may well be that on a number of grounds the present limits are not quite right from either the fuel economy or the safety point of view. We accept that point, which was put very forcefully from the Opposition Benches.
However, the present limits are set by a temporary speed limit order which is due to expire on 30th November. If the fuel economy provisions were allowed to lapse there would be no automatic return to a national limit of 70 mph, which is the upper limit on motorways. If the present order which expires on 30th November is not extended or revised, there will be no speed limit on most of our country roads, except for the motorways which are not affected by it.
We recognise that it is not feasible to consult representative organisations and consider their views by the end of November. I think most people would argue, rightly, that that is far too short a time scale, and we accept that. We are determined to give people the opportunity to think about the matter and to consult each other and the Government. We also want to allow ourselves sufficient time to weigh up the views that are put to us.
I hope that the Opposition will accept the proposal to allow six months for consultation with a wide range of public interests about the economic and road safety arguments for and against the existing limits. I give the House the undertaking that a consultation document will be circulated as soon as possible setting out the various considerations to

be taken into account. It will include the results of a survey carried out during last summer on, among other things, the observance of the limits. Early next year the Government will decide, in the light of the replies to the consultation document, what speed limits it would be appropriate to adopt next spring.
I hope that with this assurance the Opposition will feel able to withdraw their amendment.

Mr. Norman Fowler: Before the Minister sits down, I hope he will allow me to say that the last part of his speech was considerably better than the first part. What annoyed my hon. Friends was his gratuitous insults to hon. Members, which I hope he will take the opportunity of withdrawing.
The Minister made an important statement. Will he be specific on when the debate in the House will take place? One of the Opposition's major complaints is that on the last occasion when the limits came up for debate only 12 minutes' debate was allowed. We regard that as totally inadequate. I recognise how far the Government have gone tonight, but will the Minister give an assurance that a full debate will take place within the next six months before any further changes are made?

Dr. Cunningham: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman said in his opening remarks. I cannot be specific about the date of the debate. The hon. Gentleman must know that this is a matter not for me but for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and the usual channels. I have given a firm assurance on the main items that were of concern to the Opposition, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept those assurances as a guarantee of our good faith. I cannot say more than that.

Mr. Norman Fowler: I still regret the hon. Gentleman's comments, which are not in keeping with a Minister of the Crown. In view, however, of the important assurance that the Government have given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 48, in page 27, line 4, at end insert—
'The Order in Council above is to be treated for the purposes of this Act as if it


had been made under section 4(3) of this Act, and references in this Act to powers and orders under it, and similar references, are to be construed accordingly where the context permits.'.

No. 49, in page 27, line 13, leave out 'the above orders' and insert
'the orders set out in this Part'.—[Dr. J. Dickson Mabon.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

10.56 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: I spoke on Second Reading but did not have the opportunity of serving on the Standing Committee. Therefore, I do not think that it is out of place, because it is not particularly late by the traditions of the House, for me to make some observations on Third Reading.
The Minister of State said it was untrue that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy was itching to intervene and to exercise new powers relating to energy. It was obvious that the Opposition did not agree with my hon. Friend, but I believe that he was substantially right.
Indeed, my difficulty regarding the Bill is of an entirely different character. The trouble with the Department of Energy at present is not that it does too much but that, in areas where only the Department can decide, it does too little. It does not seem able in many respects to make up its mind on anything at all. Will my hon. Friend the Minister of State tell the House whether the wider powers granted by this measure will assist the necessary powers of decision in the Department immediately or whether we shall have to wait for an emergency?
Under Clause 7, the Minister may give directions to the Central Electricity Generating Board regarding the control of power station stocks. But for how long shall we have the CEGB with us? Lord Plowden's committee, which worked so hard on the reorganisation of the electricity supply industry, recommended that the CEGB and the Electricity Council should be abolished and that a strong central executive should be created in their place to take over both generation and distribution. It is quite some time since the Plowden Committee reported,

but we have had no news as to whether there will be any action. I should have thought that at least a White Paper would have assisted.
Under Clause 8, to take yet another example, the powers of the British Gas Corporation and of the Minister regarding natural gas matters have been greatly strengthened. Under Clause 1 the Minister may control gas prices. That provision is no doubt for use in an emergency.
In the meantime, there is no indication of any policy on the depletion rate of gas supplies or a true cost pricing policy in relation to alternative energy supplies. There is silence from the Department. In consequence, the surplus of electricity generating plant grows while our plant manufacturers look for orders and their employees face the prospect of the dole. Here is an area where decisions by the Minister should not be delayed, though I fear that they will be.
Lastly, but most important of all in the context of this Energy Bill, we need a decision whether, in the judgment of the Government, it is necessary to prepare for or to ignore the risk of an energy gap towards the end of the century. Dr. Marshall, the eminent Chief Scientist to the Department, is convinced that there will be such a gap, and I am sure he is right. That is why a decision on the fast breeder reactor is imperative.
The Chief Scientist appeared on television recently and put his view forward, but the political arm of his own Department seems to think that the gap will vanish if only enough people succeed in talking it out of existence. That is a most extraordinary way even of not reaching a decision. I do not object to the Department having the extra powers of the Bill, but if the House grants them we should in return at least have a policy.

11.1 p.m.

Mr. John Biffen: The hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) has made a short but pertinent contribution to the Third Reading. He reminds us that the Energy Bill, now reaching its final stages, is the only legislative contribution that has been made to energy policy during the current Session of Parliament, other than the Coal Bill which dealt with the borrowing powers of the National Coal Board and was passed earlier in the Session. The


hon. Member rightly alerts us to the provisions of Clause 7 and its implications for the organisation of the electricity supply industry. He also drew our attention to the clauses which affect the Government's whole pricing strategy in relation to the various components of total energy supplies.
We missed the hon. Gentleman in the Standing Committee because, even in the more leisurely circumstances of that occasion, these issues were canvassed in a fairly charming, reasonable nonpartisan fashion. Despite that, the answers were not at all helpful. The hon. Gentleman is well advised to cling to the last straws provided by the Bill, because I have tabled a Question for Monday on the Government's intentions in respect of the Plowden report and I understand that the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East has a similar Question. I think that we shall be disappointed by the replies. We both travel with that degree of scepticism which is all too common in politics.
On Third Reading the House must consider whether the Bill, with the armoury it contains, really provides a basis for the Government to proceed with their policy for energy. The Bill is sad and disappointing when related to the expectations that were raised by the reference to energy in the Queen's Speech almost a year ago.
In Committee we had a most constructive debate, working on the helpful foundations which had been laid in another place, where the Bill was first debated. I might say how much I appreciated the assistance which I received from all my colleagues in the Standing Committee. Understandably, my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) feels mildly exhausted by the events which immediately preceded this Bill, but he was a great pillar throughout the Committee stage, as were my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) and my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost).
The reservations which the Opposition still have about the Bill are very largely contained in Clause 1. They concern both the problems of end use and the powers of price control. As the Bill has finally taken its shape, both these

contentious matters are contained in Clause 1.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East has made conservation very much his speciality, and I know that he feels a keen sense of regret, which we share, that there was not another method whereby the conservation aspirations of the Bill could have been contrived. The rules of order do not enable me to refer to a clause which is not in the Bill, but it is our judgment that New Clause 1, which was voted down earlier today, would have been very much preferable with the conservation aspects of the legislation cast in that form.
What I am about to say I shall try to put at a reasonably temperate level, because if I put it at an intemperate level the atmosphere would not be conducive at this hour. Our worry is that, both in respect of end use and in respect of the powers of price control, there is the prospect of the politicisation of management decision in energy matters, especially in the oil industry. I say that in the presence of the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East, who has had more experience than any of us of surveying a series of Governments who, for one reason or another, have sought to intervene in the management of our public utilities, on the whole with a net disadvantageous consequence. Therefore the warning is writ large, and I feel that it is one which to some extent has been neglected in the fashioning of the Bill.
If we consider the powers which the Government are seeking concerning end use—the conservation powers—it remains the settled conviction of the Opposition that price is still as good a conserver as we know. We seem to be recruiting to our ranks the Under-Secretary, whose appointment we welcome. We wish him well and hope that he will perhaps stay in that post a little longer than his immediate predecessor—although his immediate predecessor had such a valuable apprenticeship that he moved to a better-paid, if not an otherwise more rewarding, occupation.
When talking to the British Junior Chamber in Brighton, the Under-Secretary said that
energy saving is not merely a going concern, but a profitable one.


I am not a theologian about these matters, but I prefer to hear Ministers talking about profits than about other forms of motivation, because I think that they lie a shade nearer the basic realities of human nature.
Inasmuch as the price mechanism can be used to serve the end of conservation, on the whole it is likely to be most effective. But there are many other considerations which the Government may have in mind where conservation provides a useful cloak. This is a matter which was referred to in our debates earlier today.
The Minister of State will say that he has considerable powers under the submarine oil pipelines legislation and that one is being hyper-sensitive to suppose that he would have to have recourse to Clause 1 to secure these objectives. But I have no doubt that the Government are very concerned about the location of petrochemical developments. Anyone listening to the debate on the Cromarty Petroleum Order Confirmation Bill earlier this evening, in which my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty took such a distinguished part, will realise that this is a matter which will command wide attention in the House. As the Minister reminded his audience at Stavanger recently, in respect of a proposed North Sea gas supply system, there are considerable consequences in terms of investment location of great interest to him in his political capacity. We understand that.
The Minister said:
There are companies interested in exploiting this valuable feedstock. What we must ensure is that petrochemical development is carefully controlled, taking full account of the environment, of infrastructure considerations, of employment, as well as its financial viability. This we are determined to do.
I note those words. I do not invest them with any sinister significance, but when Governments have these wide-ranging objectives there is always a well-founded anxiety that the end-use provisions of Clause 1 could well determine that end when I feel that there might be more appropriate legislative means.
I turn to the second point which has given us anxiety and which we sought to rectify by our votes—alas, frustrated—on Report. I refer to the powers of price control. The Minister based a

great deal of his argument upon the paraffin order. He will not be disappointed to have seen on the Order Paper a Prayer seeking to annul that order. Whether this great parliamentary drama will have the opportunity to be unfolded, so that the great divide between us can be fully revealed, I know not. But the case for price control cannot really rest upon the paraffin order. The more the House knew about the working of that order, the more it would be fascinated.
The reality is that there has been a substantial increase in the use of paraffin, as there has been a substantial increase in the use of Calor gas, related not to any of the provisions of the paraffin order but merely to the substantial rise in the price of electricity which persuaded many people to see whether there were cheaper alternative fuels.
I do not challenge the Minister of State, but at least I invite him to place statistics before the House. We should like to know the exact profile of the average consumer of paraffin. Is it the elderly person on low income? Has the tremendous expansion in paraffin consumption been a result of an enormous increase in the significance of this category in the community, or are we persisting with an order in respect of this fuel largely out of nostalgic considerations, quite unrelated to current economic and social circumstances? I believe that it will be very difficult to sustain the case that the paraffin order is fulfilling some social objective. I doubt whether data can be produced to sustain that argument.
However, what worried me in particular was that when the Minister of State was answering points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty about the price control measures he gave a roll-call of interests which had asked that there should be powers of price control, and inevitably and predictably they were all consumers of oil products. They were happy that the impact of the Government's legislation would be to hold paraffin at a price lower than would otherwise be the case.
I have the gravest reservations about the long-term beneficial consequences of permanent powers of this character. We have only to look round the Western


world to see where Government intervention in response to that kind of lobbying has been counter-productive to the national interest. I quote from a talk given on 19th October in New York by G. A. Wagner, President of the Royal Dutch Petroleum Company:
the patchwork of United States energy price controls still encourages consumption, and retards the search for more oil and gas to halt the rapid decline in domestic production.
That is evidence of the state of affairs in North America and should be a warning to this country. I hope that it will be taken as such by the Minister of State.
I trust that when the hon. Gentleman comes to consider that quotation, and indeed the question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty, he will do all he can to assure the House that it will not be the Government's intention to use these powers in a manner detrimental to the level of profitability of the oil industry. We have to be reconciled to a high level of profitability to ensure that degree of investment that will be necessary to give this country a reasonable choice in energy sources.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) said in Committee:
The next point I want to make is that I do not believe that Governments are capable of pricing."—[Official Report, Standing Committee J, 29th June 1976; c. 142.]
The right lion Gentleman puts these things in rather more direct controversial language than perhaps I would use, because I find myself occupying the middle ground. Nevertheless, the doyen of the Liberal Party seems to have hit on a fundamental truth: that our experience of Government centralised agencies taking a view on energy prices has on the whole tended to intensify our difficulties and problems rather than ameliorate them.
This Bill had a fairly controversial launching in the House of Lords. What was once the handiwork of the Department of Energy became the aristocratic handiwork of the other place. We tried to improve the measure, but, alas, the Government were not prepared to accept the Bill in the terms in which it reached this House. I fear that both in respect of the end-use and price-control provisions they have left the Bill with two major flaws. On those points we have our pro-

found reservations. Therefore, the Bill goes its way improved but certainly still imperfect.

11.20 p.m.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: We have all enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen). It was almost his maiden speech tonight. He has had a good go at everything. When I was rescued from the obscurity of the Back Benches, as Chairman of the Manifesto Group, and was made Minister of State at the Department of Energy, the question was whether I would have an interesting dialogue with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy.
That was not really the question. I have had a most interesting dialogue with the hon. Member for Oswestry, who is—if I may say so with respect to my right hon. Friend—a much more interesting political personality. My right hon. Friend is a very moderate man. The hon. Gentleman is such an extreme man that I find it fascinating to listen to his arguments. He is an absolute purist in terms of laissez faire and the working of the market and all the rest. I would love to believe him, but all the evidence is so much against him.
Take, for example, the simple instance of the paraffin order which I innocently introduced as non-political exhibit No. 1 in the defence of the use of these powers. It was introduced by the Conservatives originally. It was a perfectly justifiable instrument. It was sustained by us, altered in different ways. It was certainly in defence of these powers. It may have been open to abuse in various ways which the hon. Gentleman described, but if I had divided the House, as I threatened to do, I would have carried half the Tory Party with me as well as the whole of the Labour and Liberal Parties, including the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud), whom I see in the Chamber.
I hope that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East will continue to make the same valiant contributions to our debates on these matters as he made in Committee. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes), who is now Minister of State, Department of Education and Science, for all he did on this Bill. He worked closely and well with me and a better companion I could not find—apart, of course, from my hon.


Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham), who is now Under-Secretary at my Department. My hon. Friend the Member for Widnes did well and certainly improved the provisions of the Bill during our discussions.
I take the view that Ministers ought to change a Bill when they discuss it in Parliament. No Bill is perfect when it is introduced. It ought to be altered as Ministers go along. There is no dot or comma that is sacrosanct in any Bill. Alas, the Bills—and they occur—that have never changed from start to finish are not the Bills that they ought to have been.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Like the European Communities Bill.

Dr. Mabon: That is one. The Industrial Relations Bill was another. There are various others I could cite. I do not want to embarrass my own side in this respect.

Mr. Biffen: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that he and I valiantly walked through the Lobby to try to secure, without success, changes in the European Communities Bill?

Dr. Mabon: That was a most unhappy part of my life, not because I was with the hon. Gentleman but because it was such a painful affair from beginning to end. However, we have arrived where we are and I am pleased that we are now in the Market. That is the end of the argument for me.
With regard to the Plowden Report, I agree that the replies have been disappointing, particularly for my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East. We must wait and see how matters develop because this is a difficult one, particularly in these days of devolution and the arguments that go on about the concentration of industry and so on. However, that is not part of this Bill. All I say is that this is a matter which my right hon. Friend is seriously considering.

Mr. Biffen: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to dwell on the point, but will he deal with the Clause 7 point? Can he confirm, so that we may get it clear, that, devolution or not, the Plowden proposals do not affect

the electricity supply industry in Scotland at all? Both the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board and the South of Scotland Electricity Board are totally outside the terms of the Plowden recommendations.

Dr. Mabon: The hon. Gentleman does me a disservice. I am speaking not entirely as a Scotsman but as a British citizen. Members of different areas in England are entitled to their views in this matter. I am not taking sides. All I am saying is that there is this question of devolution in England which impinges on the administration of nationalised industries. I ask the hon. Gentleman not to tempt me into argument, because all I am saying is that new factors are emerging which are not irrelevant to these questions.
There have been references to the politicisation of oil. That has happened in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, much in the same way as it did with sugar. The politicisation of sugar took place in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. We can hardly beg the question in the matter of oil. Oil is a highly political subject, right the way from OPEC and the "Seven Sisters" through our own regime in this country, and even in Europe for that matter. It is highly political, and we cannot dodge that.
On the international side, the Bill enables us to fulfil our international obligations under the international energy programme, on all of which I understand that hon. Members on both sides agree. Under the IEP we are obliged to hold specified levels of petroleum stocks and to furnish information. We agree to do all that in the Bill. Also, we honour our obligations to the EEC.
We extend the Government's control over the supply and use of natural gas, to which the hon. Member for Bedford, who is not here now, referred. Natural gas is a resource of great value which the country can ill afford to squander, and, as a strong Presbyterian, I take the view that the flaring of gas is a wicked thing to do. One ought to try to use it and harness it as God intended us to do, for the benefit of mankind. I hope that we shall be able to use the gas, not recklessly flaring it as though we were a Kuwaiti or Middle East petroleum country but using it for the benefit of our own people and others.
There remain areas of contention in the Bill. This is not the last Energy Bill which will come before the House. I come now to the points made by the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty—I understand why he cannot be here now—who asked six important questions, and very Scottish-style questions they were, calling for a straight "Yes" or "No". I am sorry to say that I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman in that way.
First, the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty asked about the exercise simultaneously of general powers under the prices legislation and the specific powers under the Bill. I acknowledge that the Government are at present using the general powers under the Counter-Inflation Act and we are using specific powers under the Fuel and Electricity (Control) Act 1973, a Conservative Act of Parliament. How can the hon. Gentleman complain? The Price Commission deals with oil price applications for an overall increase—one is before it now—but it does not control price increases in respect of individual products. This can be done only through the rather clumsy mechanism which the Conservatives gave us in the 1973 Act.
The 1973 Act was an effort to refine and make more sensible the way of dealing with petroleum products. We have not taken a decision about longer-term arrangements for price control. It is a little too early to say anything about that, but I take the very sensible point which the hon. Gentleman made.
In response to the hon. Gentleman's third, fourth, fifth and sixth questions, I cannot give unqualified answers but I give an assurance that the Government would not introduce new controls without full prior consultation with the industry.
I was asked about stocking directions to the generating boards under Clause 7. These stocking directions are given to enable stocks to be held on a system rather than on an individual power station basis. The number of private generators affected is so small that it is not reasonable, I think, for me to develop that matter further.
I come next to Clause 14 and the exemptions for mobile and standby or small generators. In implementing Clause 14, we intend to make an order under subsection (4) to exempt from the notification requirement mobile genera-

ting stations which are for emergency use only, and we envisage exemptions also in respect of stations of less than 10 mW.
I do not think I can take matters further now, save to express my gratitude to the Opposition for the good reception they have given to the Bill. Despite all their speeches in Committee and here tonight, they have helped us to take the Bill to the statute book. They could have been very difficult and blocked it completely, which would have meant that we should not honour our obligations to our friends overseas and the international agreements which we have signed. The Opposition have not prevented that, although, with their great talent for speech and the deployment of argument, they could have done so. They have accepted the essence of the Bill and, while it is not perfect, it is a good measure. I am grateful to them for assisting it in its passage through the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

Orders of the Day — STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

Motion made,
That the Weights and Measures (Additional Metric Weight) Order 1976, a draft of which was laid before this House on 28th July, be approved.—[Mr. Bates.]

Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that under Standing Order No. 73 this measure has not had the effective Question put at any stage of its progress until tonight. It was reported as item 7 of yesterday's Votes and Proceedings, which are to be printed but are not vet available in the Vote Office. Therefore, hon. Members have had no chance to decide whether they should agree to or oppose this measure. I hope that there will he an appropriate interval in future. I raise this point tonight because the freedom of Back Benchers in this House is important.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) mentioned that the instrument had been reported to the House, and that fact was recorded in


yesterday's Votes and Proceedings. This being so, and the motion having been made, I have no option but to put the Question forthwith under Standing Order No. 73A.

Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — HANDICAPPED CHILDREN

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bates.]

11.31 p.m.

Mr. Clement Freud: The situation in respect of handicapped children in this country is strangely anomolous. If a pregnant woman with a two-months-old foetus goes to her doctor, and he suspects an abnormality, the advice is an instant abortion. If a child is born miserably and utterly handicapped everything is done to preserve life and every encouragement is given to the mother to keep the child in a home environment. Of course that is right. What is wrong is how little help the State gives to those whom it deputes to carry out this work.
One does not hear a great deal of complaint about this. The old truism that people do not know what they are missing applies here. Kids raised on Lancashire hot-pot do not yearn for smoked salmon soufflé. Parents do not know what can be done, and nobody tells them that the living hell that a handicapped child has condemned them to can be alleviated.
I am grateful for the selection of this Adjournment debate because it is one that was selected at an earlier date when, unfortunately, I was unable to be here. Obviously it is quite inadequate to have only half an hour to speak on the plight of handicapped children, and I had to decide whether to speak for 29 minutes to make my point, or to take the traditional 15 minutes and await the honeyed words of the Minister. But I saw the Minister, and we came to a decision. He has promised that if I keep my speech short, he will not make the usual tedious remarks about what a good and caring chap I am for raising the matter. I am glad that I have raised it—not for the praise, but to bring it to the attention

of the House and get action from the Department of Health and Social Security.
I accept, as everyone in this country must, that our financial resources are limited. I do not accept that we make the best use of them. I do not accept that people are sufficiently aware of the problems facing handicapped children. If we could make people aware of these problems the miners would make aid for handicapped children a prerequisite to a £100 a week pay claim and industrialists would forgo their golden handshakes until something constructive was done.
In most places—I am privileged to represent a county that is as concerned and as knowledgeable as any in the land—the system fails in two respects. The first is in the provision of medical help to handicapped children. The second, which is almost as important, is in the provision of support for the child's parents.
I should like to take a quick gallop through the issues and explain what is wrong. Let me begin with homes for the handicapped. Perhaps the most important aspect of these homes, which is seldom implemented, is the education aspect. What seems to happen now is that a home is opened and in one year it is full. The same people stay there until they leave for a geriatric hospital. The outwork that those people do, which possibly makes the place self-financing, is also totally decadent. Every time I see the prototype wicker basket something inside me screams out in anguish at the lack of originality and the lack of understanding that has caused some bored teacher to take the easy option.
In this age of specialisation, oddly enough the opposite to specialisation has happened to health visitors. They are the Jacks and Jills of all trades without specialised knowledge of the handicapped. Some visit too often, but most do not visit often enough. Most parents are reluctant to call them, because there is no crisis. There are few crises in terms of the health of handicapped children. Handicapped children are neither better nor worse it is the parent who is worse, and the visitor cannot do a lot about that.
The Department is required by the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act—and everyone should bear in mind the enormous gratitude the nation has to


the Under-Secretary for putting that Act on to the statute book—to keep a register. But the Minister will know that this register is seldom anywhere near complete. Let me read an extract from a letter sent by the Secretary of the Eastern Counties Society for Mentally Handicapped Children. He says:
Families may not know of statutory social services and vice-versa, or may not have confidence in them. Cut off from services, parents are sometimes unaware of the existence of benefits and allowances, voluntary workers, facilities for short-term care, help with transport etc., and have no one to advise them on future needs and possibilities. A sympathetic G.P. is very helpful. However, some doctors persist in taking mental handicap as a medical condition simply, ignoring its aspects as a social and emotional problem for the family.
The situation is that in the case of both physically and mentally handicapped children, at birth the mother relies on the tact of the practitioner or the nursing staff. Mothers can be left, sometimes overnight, knowing that something is wrong but not knowing what it is until these people are available. Here, the hospitals and maternity homes should have guidelines for the most humane possible procedure involving parents, and immediate support for the mother in the form of support workers, social workers and health visitors. Possibly a parent group should be alerted.
In the first year—this is particularly so in the case of mental handicap—too many parents are left without help. The general practitioner gives no information and suggests a return visit in six months. The health visitor may be uninformed about the likely progress of the child or the existence of assessment clinics and available help. Here, families with a mentally handicapped child should have allocated to them a specialist officer who has an obligation to talk to them, and to whom they can turn. He should supply the first link between the various authorities—the general practitioner, the area health authority the social services department, and so on.
It is crucial to improve communications between these agencies and between them and the voluntary bodies, because too often agencies are in dispute with each other and are jealous of each other's ability to help children.
We now come to late diagnosis. Mothers may encounter great difficulty

in obtaining referral to a specialist for diagnosis through their general practitioners. Other qualified workers may recognise the handicap and be unable to say anything if the GP is not willing to act. Early diagnosis is now considered vital. Valuable time may be lost. There must be some channel for the use of any qualified worker who recognises the possibility of a handicap to ensure that it is investigated. This cannot be stressed enough.
Professional confidentiality sometimes works against the best interests of those whom it is meant to protect. My wife is the Chairman of the Mentally Handicapped Society of Ely, which provides a baby-sitting service for parents. It is paid for by the society, which is run in co-operation with the local social services department. The society wishes to make the service available to all parents in the area, but it is not allowed to know the names and addresses of parents who are not members. The social services department informs the parents direct, but the society cannot provide a back-up service.
In a letter to me, the head of social services said:
I am very interested to hear that you are willing to explore the possibility of starting a mother and child playgroup, but I am afraid it would not be correct for me to pass to you the names of mothers with pre-school age mentally handicapped children. We would not provide this information to anyone.
Here is a community in which people want to help others, but professional confidentiality is preventing these good people from getting in touch with children who desperately need their help.
Many multiple-handicapped young people need expensive equipment. There should be a bank of teaching aids, language masters, therapy aids and special cutlery in every area on which schools and hospitals could draw on a loan basis. At present, people buy these items, and when a handicapped child grows up or gets better there is no way in which the equipment can be passed on to others.
In education, school places should be available from the age of three or four, or even sooner, for all handicapped children, and opportunities should be given to them to continue their education until the age of 19. At present, only lip service is paid to this. Education authorities, although empowered to keep children until


the age of 19, rarely do so, and are rarely able to do so because of the pressure of numbers for school places. There are not enough places available in adult training centres, and a serious shortage is forecast for next year. In these centres there must be more emphasis on education. Priority should be given to plans for residential provision to achieve the target in the Government's excellent paper "Better Services for the Mentally Handicapped."
My main plea is for more foresight and interest. When the debate was announced, I was touched to receive a call from the Department of Education and Science to say that the Minister was taking an interest. We need more interest and more understanding from more people.
When schools are built adjacent sites should be investigated to see whether provision can be made there for mentally handicapped pupils. When the Department of the Environment makes money available for a sports centre, it should do so on condition that the centre is to be used by handicapped children for a certain number of hours a day.
I ask the Treasury to bear in mind the total inability of the severely handicapped to cope with cuts. When cuts are made, the handicapped—not the miners, the seamen or the police—are the special cases. The phasing out of the invalid trike was the one of the cruellest cuts. It was said that the trike was dangerous, but I have never met a handicapped person who did not value mobility above personal safety and independence above the inadequate bus fare allowances that will be the successors to trikes.
I am happy that the previous Prime Minister should award an honour to the manufacturer of raincoats, but I would much sooner have seen honours go to those who deserved them, namely, the teachers, the parents, the architects, and all those who gave extra care, thought and time—of which many had so little—to this cause.
Life is an ongoing state, and so is being handicapped. The sick and the well can decline or improve, but there can be no improvement without care, thought or concern. If we send all handicapped children to places where they make baskets, there will be nothing but decline.

To the handicapped, a hospital or residential school is a home, not a place where they spend a few days or weeks until they get better. Hospitals for the handicapped must adapt, so that they are acceptable as homes for those who are in them. It is a measure of the compassion of a society whether the handicapped are given the love, care and facilities of a society that they need. As a nation, I should say that we are on the borderline of compassion—no more than that.
I end by introducing two case histories from a report that my wife submitted to the local doctors, teachers, social workers and parents of Cambridgeshire after two years of "caring" for all my constituents but especially my handicapped constituents. She writes:
Nothing can make the parents' realisation that their child is handicapped less than a deeply emotional and shocking experience. The diagnosis of the child's condition is a medical one but once given to the parent, it immediately gives rise to complex social issues. The earliest one with which we should be concerned is how to avoid adding to the parents' distress by insensitivity or lack of preparation.
The first case I would like to quote in this context is of a mongol child … who was born at 8.45 p.m. and the mother realised there was something wrong as the baby was not brought back to her and she saw the staff looking at her. She asked the midwife and the nurse separately what was wrong and was told the doctor would see her later. In the meantime, the maternity home telephoned the father and said: 'your daughter has Downs Syndrome; will you come in the morning?' He had never heard of Downs Syndrome and neither had any of his mates. He said afterwards that he went through agonies during the night. His wife lay awake in the ward thinking that her baby was dying and in the middle of the night, got herself out of bed to go down the corridor to find out if she was still alive. The midwife told her the truth about the child at 6 a.m. and the husband came in later, but he was not by this time calm enough himself to be able to comfort his wife. The midwife and the doctor had both wished the mother to have a good night's rest before hearing the bad news.
The second case concerns a mongol child who was born last November. The mother wrote:
Our daughter was two days old when my husband was told she was a mongol, and five days old when I was told. My husband was told by the doctor while he was visiting me and told not to tell me.
Later, my own family doctor came to my home to tell us together. This was much the better way to be told as he explained so well to us both, as all my husband was told at the hospital was that our baby was a mongol; there was no explanation why or what it


meant; I think we should have been told together as I would have liked to comfort my husband as that was the time he really needed me. Instead he had to hide his feelings for three days.
That is the point that I wish to bring before the House, and I give way to the Minister.

11.50 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Alfred Morris): Notwithstanding what was said about dispensing with the normal proprieties, I hope that the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) will at least allow me warmly to congratulate him on his persuasive and skilful advocacy in opening this somewhat adjourned Adjournment debate. As the hon. Gentleman will recall, the debate was to have taken place earlier this year. I know that both the hon. Gentleman and his wife take a keen personal interest in the welfare of handicapped children and have done so for many years. They do a great deal of exemplary work for disabled children and their families.
I have but 11 minutes in which to reply to a speech that contained many questions as well as many points with which I would wholeheartedly agree. Naturally I shall try my very best to respond as positively as I possibly can in the time available.
To have a handicapped child can impose very severe strains on a family. I should like first, therefore, to say something about what is being done already to help these families.
The hon. Member emphasised the role that the National Health Service has to play in helping handicapped children and their families. The most effective action that the NHS can take in regard to mental and physical handicap is to try to prevent its occurrence wherever possible. In my view, there is much scope for preventive action through improving services during pregnancy and childbirth. As a follow-up to my Department's consultative document, entitled "Prevention and Health—Everybody's Business", we intend soon to issue a paper on care in pregnancy and early infancy.
My Department is keen to ensure that all health care activities with a preventive purpose in this area are co-ordinated so as to provide a comprehensive service

with the prime objective of reducing the incidence of handicap. Before conception, the service would ensure rubella vaccination for the mother, the availability of family planning advice and the provision of genetic counselling for those at risk of certain inherited conditions. During pregnancy, a high standard of ante-natal care is required with pre-natal diagnostic facilities where necessary. I am especially concerned that older women should he offered tests to detect Down's Syndrome, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and I am hopeful that services for the detection of neural tube defects can be expanded in the near future.
All these matters will be dealt with fully in the proposed follow-up paper I have mentioned. It is important also that birth should take place in well-equipped hospitals, where the full range of modern obstetric and pediatric techniques is available, and also that there should be a prompt clinical examination of the newborn.
By encouraging continued development in these areas, we hope that over the years ahead we shall see a real decline in the numbers of children born with severe handicapping conditions.
The hon. Gentleman will know that all babies are examined at birth for observable abnormality, including Down's Syndrome, and that arrangements are made for any care or treatment that might be needed. There is also special surveillance of all handicapped children to make sure that everything possible is done to minimise handicaps. Between six and 14 days after birth, all infants are tested for phenylketonuria, a disease which can result in mental handicap if untreated, so that appropriate dietary treatment can be initiated as soon as possible.
There is evidence that effective, special and intensive care for sick and low birth-weight newborn babies can both save lives and reduce the incidence of mental and physical handicap in the survivors. The consultative document "Priorities for Health and Personal Social Services in England", which was published earlier this year, gives high priority to improvement of standards of special care for the newborn.
The birth of a child with a handicap that can be immediately diagnosed must be regarded as an acute emotional and


social crisis for the parents. A booklet on "Care of the Child with Spina Bifida", prepared in 1973 by the Standing Medical Advisory Committee, stressed the skill that is required in counselling the parents of a child with this condition. It suggested that the father should be involved in discussions about care at an early stage. Repeated opportunities should be provided for both parents to discuss their anxieties with professional advisers. Ideally, one member of staff should assume particular responsibility for stimulating these discussions. The importance of repeated opportunities for such discussions, both in hospital and at home, cannot be overemphasised. I am sure that this advice holds good for all types of handicap which are apparent at or soon after birth.
The importance of the multi-disciplinary assessment for children with suspected handicap has been recognised for a number of years. It is referred to in policy circular HM(71)22, "Hospital Facilities for Children". Our consultative document on priorities also recognises the importance of providing comprehensive assessment and follow-up services to help handicapped children to reach their full potential.
Comprehensive assessment services encourage the participation of parents, and provide them with support and advice in the management of the child. Parents' discussion groups, toy libraries and supplies of appropriate literature may be arranged and the parents put in touch with appropriate voluntary organisations.
The hon. Gentleman also drew attention to the problem of confidentiality of information about handicapped children. That is an extremely important matter. I think the key to overcoming the main problem lies in parental involvement in making plans for the child. When a child is first referred for multi-disciplinary assessment, the parents' permission should be sought to share information among members of the team. When the child's needs are discussed with the parents in a counselling session following the assessment, as they always should be, permission can be sought to tell any voluntary organisation which may be able to help about the family's needs. Such permission is most unlikely to be refused.
I certainly take the hon. Gentleman's point that the parents of mentally handi-

capped children often find difficulty in knowing just what services are available to them and how they may be approached. This difficulty is increasingly being countered by the provision of guides to services prepared by the authorities concerned with particular areas and circulated, not just to parents, but also to members of all professions who may come in contact with the parents or the child. These guides are to be strongly commended and I hope that, even in these difficult times, those authorities at present without them will give their production serious consideration.
In my own area, the city of Manchester has recently published an excellent guide to the services available to mentally disabled people. On the further point of a specialised co-ordinating officer for services to mentally handicapped children, I can only say that the importance of the problem of service coordination is well recognised by my Department. I hope that there will shortly be available a comprehensive guidance pamphlet prepared by the National Development Group for the Mentally Handicapped and I am sure that the advice it provides will be very carefully studied by service planners.
Another question to which the hon. Gentleman also referred was that of coordination between all the agencies that can help. How often do we hear of parents who are quite overwhelmed and bewildered by the complexities of the welfare "machine" and do not know which way to turn? This is not in any way an indictment of the advice and help given by statutory organisations or by the voluntary sector; it is simply a reflection of the highly complex range of needs of the handicapped child and his family.
One of the big and intractable problems of our time is how to make the "machine" accessible and understandable to people who are in a distressing situation which is new to them. What they need is a "single door" approach to make the face even of the largest institutions seem more human. This approach can help to reduce the fears that so often afflict the parents of a handicapped child. I am, therefore, most grateful to the National Children's Bureau for its important initiative in


recently establishing the Voluntary Council for Handicapped Children.
One of the main aims of the new council is to provide the "single door" approach to the very wide range of help which is now available from so many different agencies. I am much impressed with the council's work so far and by the quality of its first pamphlet "Help Starts Here", which I understand will be followed by other publications. I am also very interested in the seminars and "workshops" which the council has mounted. The membership of the council represents a great deal of talent and expertise, covering all the interests of handicapped children. I am naturally very glad to have been able to authorise payment from my Department of a grant to the council of £30,000 over three years. This example of voluntary organisations working together is one that might well be followed by other organisations in the voluntary sector. I commend the National Children's Bureau for the initiative it has taken.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science would agree with the hon. Gentleman that many handicapped children need to start their education at the age of 2 or 3 and many need to continued it after the age of 16. Further study is required, however, into the numbers who would benefit and also into the forms of provision that are desirable. It is generally accepted that a range of facilities is needed to suit the requirements of individual handicapped children. The Committee of Inquiry into Special Education, chaired by Professor Mrs. Mary Warnock of the University of Oxford, which will be looking at the educational needs of handicapped children at both these stages, is expected to report early in 1978.
Adult training centres play a key role for mentally handicapped people when they leave school. They help the mentally handicapped to develop and to make the fullest use of their abilities. I always

like to emphasise the abilities of disabled people. Many people fail to see that it is not just the disabilities but also the abilities of handicapped people which count. The work skills and social skills taught there not only help mentally handicapped people to cope with the many problems of everyday life that most of us take for granted but enable some of them to move to sheltered or outside employment and so become properly integrated into the community.
All these matters are being considered in depth by the National Development Group for the Mentally Handicapped, which is taking day services for the mentally handicapped and, in particular, adult training centres, as one of its priority areas for policy development. A subgroup is now at work on a pamphlet on the role of these centres, which it is hoped will be of value both to practitioners and planners.
The Consultative Document on Health and Personal Social Services Priorities reaffirms that our primary aim is to ensure that mentally handicapped people are looked after in the community whenever this is possible. It is in the formative years that children need the close and warm relationships that a family gives, and which are so difficult to provide in a large institutional setting.
Another aspect of support for handicapped children is special cash provision, which is comparatively new but increasingly important. The attendance allowance was the first cash benefit to become payable. Today the allowance is being paid to the families of some 40,000 severely handicapped children——

The Question having been proposed aften Ten o'clock on Thursday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at one minute past Twelve o'clock.